<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_13_0650229</id>
	<title>Micro-Black Holes Make Poor Planet Killers</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1258117740000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>astroengine writes <i>"Physicists are getting excited about the possibility of micro-black holes (MBH) being produced by the LHC and an international group of researchers have done the math to see what kind of impact they could have on the Earth. Unfortunately, if you're a megalomaniac looking for your next globe-eating weapon, <a href="http://news.discovery.com/space/the-lhc-black-hole-no-braner.html">you can scrub MBHs off your WMD list</a>. If a speedy MBH is produced, flying through our planet, it will only have a few seconds to accrete the mass of a few atoms. It would then be lost to space where it will evaporate. If a slow MBH is produced, dropping into the Earth where it sits for a few billion years, the results are even more boring."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>astroengine writes " Physicists are getting excited about the possibility of micro-black holes ( MBH ) being produced by the LHC and an international group of researchers have done the math to see what kind of impact they could have on the Earth .
Unfortunately , if you 're a megalomaniac looking for your next globe-eating weapon , you can scrub MBHs off your WMD list .
If a speedy MBH is produced , flying through our planet , it will only have a few seconds to accrete the mass of a few atoms .
It would then be lost to space where it will evaporate .
If a slow MBH is produced , dropping into the Earth where it sits for a few billion years , the results are even more boring .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>astroengine writes "Physicists are getting excited about the possibility of micro-black holes (MBH) being produced by the LHC and an international group of researchers have done the math to see what kind of impact they could have on the Earth.
Unfortunately, if you're a megalomaniac looking for your next globe-eating weapon, you can scrub MBHs off your WMD list.
If a speedy MBH is produced, flying through our planet, it will only have a few seconds to accrete the mass of a few atoms.
It would then be lost to space where it will evaporate.
If a slow MBH is produced, dropping into the Earth where it sits for a few billion years, the results are even more boring.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085690</id>
	<title>But what if slow black holes collide?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258121580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, but I really feel the need to be afraid of something irrational.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but I really feel the need to be afraid of something irrational .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but I really feel the need to be afraid of something irrational.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086904</id>
	<title>Re:More Mass = More Suck</title>
	<author>scorp1us</author>
	<datestamp>1258128420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This has always been true. My friends quip about my dating chubby girls all the time. I never told them why, but they'll know now!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This has always been true .
My friends quip about my dating chubby girls all the time .
I never told them why , but they 'll know now !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has always been true.
My friends quip about my dating chubby girls all the time.
I never told them why, but they'll know now!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085786</id>
	<title>Evaporate?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258122360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And where exactly does the MBH evaporate to?  Or is that all part of the mystery?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And where exactly does the MBH evaporate to ?
Or is that all part of the mystery ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And where exactly does the MBH evaporate to?
Or is that all part of the mystery?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086358</id>
	<title>Geocide</title>
	<author>Lord Bitman</author>
	<datestamp>1258125840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sam Hughes will be so disappointed</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sam Hughes will be so disappointed</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sam Hughes will be so disappointed</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085976</id>
	<title>Black holes are fiction</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1258123740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't crush something with a force that's weaker than the repulsive force that's holding it apart.</p><p>Gravity is much, much weaker than the subatomic electrostatic forces that hold subatomic particles apart.</p><p>In essence, what you're claiming in a black hole is a neutron star &ndash; a single massive nucleus &ndash; packed together as tightly as is physically possible for matter to be packed. This is impossible on the most basic level: the larger an atomic nucleus gets, the more unstable it is. There are no stable atomic nuclei any larger than lead-208.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't crush something with a force that 's weaker than the repulsive force that 's holding it apart.Gravity is much , much weaker than the subatomic electrostatic forces that hold subatomic particles apart.In essence , what you 're claiming in a black hole is a neutron star    a single massive nucleus    packed together as tightly as is physically possible for matter to be packed .
This is impossible on the most basic level : the larger an atomic nucleus gets , the more unstable it is .
There are no stable atomic nuclei any larger than lead-208 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't crush something with a force that's weaker than the repulsive force that's holding it apart.Gravity is much, much weaker than the subatomic electrostatic forces that hold subatomic particles apart.In essence, what you're claiming in a black hole is a neutron star – a single massive nucleus – packed together as tightly as is physically possible for matter to be packed.
This is impossible on the most basic level: the larger an atomic nucleus gets, the more unstable it is.
There are no stable atomic nuclei any larger than lead-208.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30096626</id>
	<title>Re:Evaporate?</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1258205220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quantum mechanics. The radiation actually originates from slightly outside the horizon, where virtual particle-antiparticle pairs are created and normally annihilated again, just like everywhere else in the vacuum. However if one of them crosses the horizon, they cannot reunite, and the remaining particle gets a real one by "stealing" energy from the black hole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quantum mechanics .
The radiation actually originates from slightly outside the horizon , where virtual particle-antiparticle pairs are created and normally annihilated again , just like everywhere else in the vacuum .
However if one of them crosses the horizon , they can not reunite , and the remaining particle gets a real one by " stealing " energy from the black hole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quantum mechanics.
The radiation actually originates from slightly outside the horizon, where virtual particle-antiparticle pairs are created and normally annihilated again, just like everywhere else in the vacuum.
However if one of them crosses the horizon, they cannot reunite, and the remaining particle gets a real one by "stealing" energy from the black hole.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30093428</id>
	<title>Re:More Mass = More Suck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258117260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How are fat girls like a moped?<br> <br>
They're a lot of fun until your friends see you with one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How are fat girls like a moped ?
They 're a lot of fun until your friends see you with one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How are fat girls like a moped?
They're a lot of fun until your friends see you with one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086016</id>
	<title>Re:Evaporate?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258124040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sadly, evaporation is an accepted black hole physics concept. It has to do with loss of mass over huge amounts of time from something like friction between the event horizon and normal space, if I recall correctly. Wikipedia has crunchy equations on it:</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking\_radiation#Black\_hole\_evaporation" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking\_radiation#Black\_hole\_evaporation</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly , evaporation is an accepted black hole physics concept .
It has to do with loss of mass over huge amounts of time from something like friction between the event horizon and normal space , if I recall correctly .
Wikipedia has crunchy equations on it : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking \ _radiation # Black \ _hole \ _evaporation [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly, evaporation is an accepted black hole physics concept.
It has to do with loss of mass over huge amounts of time from something like friction between the event horizon and normal space, if I recall correctly.
Wikipedia has crunchy equations on it:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking\_radiation#Black\_hole\_evaporation [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085688</id>
	<title>Lots of speculation.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258121580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like a lot of advanced theoretical physics, this is nothing but speculation heaped upon more speculation.</p><p>Just because their math suggests this to be the case, doesn't mean that it actually is.</p><p>With some of the math used, there are literally only three or four other theoretical physicists in the world who can "comprehend" it. At that point, one has to wonder if they actually do comprehend it, or just claim to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like a lot of advanced theoretical physics , this is nothing but speculation heaped upon more speculation.Just because their math suggests this to be the case , does n't mean that it actually is.With some of the math used , there are literally only three or four other theoretical physicists in the world who can " comprehend " it .
At that point , one has to wonder if they actually do comprehend it , or just claim to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like a lot of advanced theoretical physics, this is nothing but speculation heaped upon more speculation.Just because their math suggests this to be the case, doesn't mean that it actually is.With some of the math used, there are literally only three or four other theoretical physicists in the world who can "comprehend" it.
At that point, one has to wonder if they actually do comprehend it, or just claim to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30092518</id>
	<title>Re:Scary Hypothesis.....We are destroying the Worl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258110720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In more serious terms, in case anyone believes the parent in spite of its +4 Funny mod:</p><p>Obviously the branching universes only happen based on things that are actually possible. There are no branches from me making my morning coffee that result in the destruction of Earth, or unicorns wandering into my yard, or anything like that.</p><p>Since the LHC *can't* destroy the earth, no LHC startup attempts are spinning off destroyed-Earth branches.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In more serious terms , in case anyone believes the parent in spite of its + 4 Funny mod : Obviously the branching universes only happen based on things that are actually possible .
There are no branches from me making my morning coffee that result in the destruction of Earth , or unicorns wandering into my yard , or anything like that.Since the LHC * ca n't * destroy the earth , no LHC startup attempts are spinning off destroyed-Earth branches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In more serious terms, in case anyone believes the parent in spite of its +4 Funny mod:Obviously the branching universes only happen based on things that are actually possible.
There are no branches from me making my morning coffee that result in the destruction of Earth, or unicorns wandering into my yard, or anything like that.Since the LHC *can't* destroy the earth, no LHC startup attempts are spinning off destroyed-Earth branches.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30088750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087912</id>
	<title>Re:Lots of speculation.</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1258133340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Another way to put it: if we were so sure that what we know is 100\% correct then we wouldn't need to build the LHC to test our theories in the first place.</i></p><p>There's a nice equivocation in this statement:  we can be as sure as we are of anything that LHC black holes won't destroy the Earth.  If they did we'd see evidence in the cosmic-ray spectrum due to evaporating black hole signatures and the like, as well as the Earth not actually being here because it would have been destroyed in the past.</p><p>So while we do need to build the LHC to test theories regarding the Higgs boson, we do not need to build it to test theories regarding LHC black holes.  That's the thing about science:  all sources of experimental knowledge are equally valid, and you don't get to say our knowlege of black holes supposedly created by high energy collisions "doesn't count" because it comes from cosmic rays rather than accelerators.</p><p>Furthermore, I'm not sure why you and others keep bringing up the 100\% correct thing.  You can't be sure 100\% certainty that the act of typing your next post into<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. won't invoke some as-yet-to-be-discovered physical law and cause you to grow a second head.  But for some reason you won't explain you aren't worried about that, even though you seem to pretend to be worried about LHC black holes destroying the Earth, which has no greater probablity.</p><p>Why is that?  Why aren't you posting about all the other things that you can't be 100\% sure of not destroying the Earth?  Why only the LHC and not hitherto undiscovered physical laws that will cause the DROID phone to result in the death of us all?  The "not 100\% sure" standard is so silly that you'd have to terrified of damned near everything, if you were remotely intellectually honest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another way to put it : if we were so sure that what we know is 100 \ % correct then we would n't need to build the LHC to test our theories in the first place.There 's a nice equivocation in this statement : we can be as sure as we are of anything that LHC black holes wo n't destroy the Earth .
If they did we 'd see evidence in the cosmic-ray spectrum due to evaporating black hole signatures and the like , as well as the Earth not actually being here because it would have been destroyed in the past.So while we do need to build the LHC to test theories regarding the Higgs boson , we do not need to build it to test theories regarding LHC black holes .
That 's the thing about science : all sources of experimental knowledge are equally valid , and you do n't get to say our knowlege of black holes supposedly created by high energy collisions " does n't count " because it comes from cosmic rays rather than accelerators.Furthermore , I 'm not sure why you and others keep bringing up the 100 \ % correct thing .
You ca n't be sure 100 \ % certainty that the act of typing your next post into / .
wo n't invoke some as-yet-to-be-discovered physical law and cause you to grow a second head .
But for some reason you wo n't explain you are n't worried about that , even though you seem to pretend to be worried about LHC black holes destroying the Earth , which has no greater probablity.Why is that ?
Why are n't you posting about all the other things that you ca n't be 100 \ % sure of not destroying the Earth ?
Why only the LHC and not hitherto undiscovered physical laws that will cause the DROID phone to result in the death of us all ?
The " not 100 \ % sure " standard is so silly that you 'd have to terrified of damned near everything , if you were remotely intellectually honest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another way to put it: if we were so sure that what we know is 100\% correct then we wouldn't need to build the LHC to test our theories in the first place.There's a nice equivocation in this statement:  we can be as sure as we are of anything that LHC black holes won't destroy the Earth.
If they did we'd see evidence in the cosmic-ray spectrum due to evaporating black hole signatures and the like, as well as the Earth not actually being here because it would have been destroyed in the past.So while we do need to build the LHC to test theories regarding the Higgs boson, we do not need to build it to test theories regarding LHC black holes.
That's the thing about science:  all sources of experimental knowledge are equally valid, and you don't get to say our knowlege of black holes supposedly created by high energy collisions "doesn't count" because it comes from cosmic rays rather than accelerators.Furthermore, I'm not sure why you and others keep bringing up the 100\% correct thing.
You can't be sure 100\% certainty that the act of typing your next post into /.
won't invoke some as-yet-to-be-discovered physical law and cause you to grow a second head.
But for some reason you won't explain you aren't worried about that, even though you seem to pretend to be worried about LHC black holes destroying the Earth, which has no greater probablity.Why is that?
Why aren't you posting about all the other things that you can't be 100\% sure of not destroying the Earth?
Why only the LHC and not hitherto undiscovered physical laws that will cause the DROID phone to result in the death of us all?
The "not 100\% sure" standard is so silly that you'd have to terrified of damned near everything, if you were remotely intellectually honest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085742</id>
	<title>Poor MBHs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258121880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ironically, it sucks to be them<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ironically , it sucks to be them : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ironically, it sucks to be them :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086042</id>
	<title>Re:Lots of speculation.</title>
	<author>asliarun</author>
	<datestamp>1258124160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please don't go about shaking our belief systems. We need these uncertainties to keep being fearful of our vengeful gods.</p><p>"...I have a constant fear that somethings always near<br>I have a phobia that someone's always there<br>Fear of the dark, fear of the dark..."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please do n't go about shaking our belief systems .
We need these uncertainties to keep being fearful of our vengeful gods .
" ...I have a constant fear that somethings always nearI have a phobia that someone 's always thereFear of the dark , fear of the dark... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please don't go about shaking our belief systems.
We need these uncertainties to keep being fearful of our vengeful gods.
"...I have a constant fear that somethings always nearI have a phobia that someone's always thereFear of the dark, fear of the dark..."</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085878</id>
	<title>Famous last words</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258123080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is completely safe. We know what's going to happen, that's why we're building these expensive machines to perform experiments. (Yes, I know that doing something catastrophic with the LHC is very very unlikely, but it's an experiment after all. It's not like scientists have never fucked up before, is it?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is completely safe .
We know what 's going to happen , that 's why we 're building these expensive machines to perform experiments .
( Yes , I know that doing something catastrophic with the LHC is very very unlikely , but it 's an experiment after all .
It 's not like scientists have never fucked up before , is it ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is completely safe.
We know what's going to happen, that's why we're building these expensive machines to perform experiments.
(Yes, I know that doing something catastrophic with the LHC is very very unlikely, but it's an experiment after all.
It's not like scientists have never fucked up before, is it?
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086430</id>
	<title>John Titor</title>
	<author>WormholeFiend</author>
	<datestamp>1258126260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>used a time machine made with mini black holes, in case you guys have forgotten..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>used a time machine made with mini black holes , in case you guys have forgotten. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>used a time machine made with mini black holes, in case you guys have forgotten..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30089918</id>
	<title>Re:Scary Hypothesis.....We are destroying the Worl</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1258141620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are confusing time line branches with the multiverse theory. I will address both:</p><p>NOTHING we do in this universe impacts another universe in any way what so ever due to are friend decohesion</p><p>Creating a new time line doesn't mean that the new  time line can violate physics. So even in a other time lines, the LHC does not destroy the planet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are confusing time line branches with the multiverse theory .
I will address both : NOTHING we do in this universe impacts another universe in any way what so ever due to are friend decohesionCreating a new time line does n't mean that the new time line can violate physics .
So even in a other time lines , the LHC does not destroy the planet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are confusing time line branches with the multiverse theory.
I will address both:NOTHING we do in this universe impacts another universe in any way what so ever due to are friend decohesionCreating a new time line doesn't mean that the new  time line can violate physics.
So even in a other time lines, the LHC does not destroy the planet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30088750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30088750</id>
	<title>Scary Hypothesis.....We are destroying the World</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1258137300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the LHC has destroyed the world multiple times now.   It is just that we here and now are the survivors of the disasters....</p><p>According to the Multi-verse theory, each quantum fluctuation creates a new universe or timeline.....</p><p>Because we are alive and well and not consumed by a black hole, that means in "our" branch of the multiverse we haven't created a Black Hole that swallows earth "yet".....</p><p>But fear not because Even if the LHC were to create a earth consuming black hole, strangelet, way to lower the energy level entire universe leading to it's immediate destruction.   We will survive because at least one branch of timeline will survive by failing to create these anomolies and go on to branch out some more to survive whatever weird physics experiments we dream up of go arwy.....</p><p>The only problem is when creating black hols and exotic matter that is large enough to reduce quantum probability and then we are really screwed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the LHC has destroyed the world multiple times now .
It is just that we here and now are the survivors of the disasters....According to the Multi-verse theory , each quantum fluctuation creates a new universe or timeline.....Because we are alive and well and not consumed by a black hole , that means in " our " branch of the multiverse we have n't created a Black Hole that swallows earth " yet " .....But fear not because Even if the LHC were to create a earth consuming black hole , strangelet , way to lower the energy level entire universe leading to it 's immediate destruction .
We will survive because at least one branch of timeline will survive by failing to create these anomolies and go on to branch out some more to survive whatever weird physics experiments we dream up of go arwy.....The only problem is when creating black hols and exotic matter that is large enough to reduce quantum probability and then we are really screwed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the LHC has destroyed the world multiple times now.
It is just that we here and now are the survivors of the disasters....According to the Multi-verse theory, each quantum fluctuation creates a new universe or timeline.....Because we are alive and well and not consumed by a black hole, that means in "our" branch of the multiverse we haven't created a Black Hole that swallows earth "yet".....But fear not because Even if the LHC were to create a earth consuming black hole, strangelet, way to lower the energy level entire universe leading to it's immediate destruction.
We will survive because at least one branch of timeline will survive by failing to create these anomolies and go on to branch out some more to survive whatever weird physics experiments we dream up of go arwy.....The only problem is when creating black hols and exotic matter that is large enough to reduce quantum probability and then we are really screwed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087976</id>
	<title>Re:But what if slow black holes collide?</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1258133640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not disagreeing with you generally of course - but aren't protons &amp; neutrons more accuratelly conceptualised as, indeed, a sphere with each of the quarks not occupying any specific point but being "mixed" together?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not disagreeing with you generally of course - but are n't protons &amp; neutrons more accuratelly conceptualised as , indeed , a sphere with each of the quarks not occupying any specific point but being " mixed " together ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not disagreeing with you generally of course - but aren't protons &amp; neutrons more accuratelly conceptualised as, indeed, a sphere with each of the quarks not occupying any specific point but being "mixed" together?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30090388</id>
	<title>Re:But that's how they killed Vulcan...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1258143300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't worry. Apparently, from the physical rules shown in the movie, the bigger the ball of red matter is, the less dangerous it is.</p><p>That's why a tiny drop can kill an entire planet.<br>While Spock can steer a spaceship with a HUGE ball of red mass straight into a ship in a space-time rift, and the enterprise crew doesn't even blink. Much less fly away in terror as fast as they can. ^^</p><p>(Yes. That consistency error totally ruined the ending for me.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't worry .
Apparently , from the physical rules shown in the movie , the bigger the ball of red matter is , the less dangerous it is.That 's why a tiny drop can kill an entire planet.While Spock can steer a spaceship with a HUGE ball of red mass straight into a ship in a space-time rift , and the enterprise crew does n't even blink .
Much less fly away in terror as fast as they can .
^ ^ ( Yes. That consistency error totally ruined the ending for me .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't worry.
Apparently, from the physical rules shown in the movie, the bigger the ball of red matter is, the less dangerous it is.That's why a tiny drop can kill an entire planet.While Spock can steer a spaceship with a HUGE ball of red mass straight into a ship in a space-time rift, and the enterprise crew doesn't even blink.
Much less fly away in terror as fast as they can.
^^(Yes. That consistency error totally ruined the ending for me.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087756</id>
	<title>Re:The problem is...</title>
	<author>bcmm</author>
	<datestamp>1258132680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As mentioned above, based on the sample we have, it's more likely they wiped themselves out with weapons. We've been closer than most people realise, and it's possible that a full nuclear exchange would make the planet briefly uninhabitable.<br> <br>A nicer theory is that civilisations are typically a lot quieter than we think. We're already making the transition from TV and radio towers broadcasting in all directions to geostationary satellites which beam their signals down onto the planet. Maybe nobody makes large amounts of EM noise for more than a century or so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As mentioned above , based on the sample we have , it 's more likely they wiped themselves out with weapons .
We 've been closer than most people realise , and it 's possible that a full nuclear exchange would make the planet briefly uninhabitable .
A nicer theory is that civilisations are typically a lot quieter than we think .
We 're already making the transition from TV and radio towers broadcasting in all directions to geostationary satellites which beam their signals down onto the planet .
Maybe nobody makes large amounts of EM noise for more than a century or so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As mentioned above, based on the sample we have, it's more likely they wiped themselves out with weapons.
We've been closer than most people realise, and it's possible that a full nuclear exchange would make the planet briefly uninhabitable.
A nicer theory is that civilisations are typically a lot quieter than we think.
We're already making the transition from TV and radio towers broadcasting in all directions to geostationary satellites which beam their signals down onto the planet.
Maybe nobody makes large amounts of EM noise for more than a century or so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087134</id>
	<title>Re:More Mass = More Suck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258129560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Black Hoes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Black Hoes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Black Hoes?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086088</id>
	<title>Re:More Mass = More Suck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258124460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this going to affect Meatloaf's work on the Linux kernel getting into the main branch?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this going to affect Meatloaf 's work on the Linux kernel getting into the main branch ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this going to affect Meatloaf's work on the Linux kernel getting into the main branch?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085686</id>
	<title>More Mass = More Suck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258121580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess I know what kind of girl to look for now<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess I know what kind of girl to look for now ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess I know what kind of girl to look for now ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086168</id>
	<title>Re:As if!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258125000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they had not built the LHC, they would have used the money for other scientific projects. You could imagine (could you?) that they would then have just different jobs.</p><p>Even though. The people who built the LHC and those who might use it in future are not equal sets of people. The CERN is such a big institution, that there is fluctuation. Some scientists are even just guests there for some time, so do you really think that all of them (including those who work abroad and those who have not got enough funding of their projects because of the LHC will just quietly stand by and say nothing?).</p><p>All people who argued that the LHC is a World Dooms Machine are not physicists especially not particle physicists so why should they understand it better than particle physicists? And remember not all particle physicists work for CERN. There are others and the all say its save.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they had not built the LHC , they would have used the money for other scientific projects .
You could imagine ( could you ?
) that they would then have just different jobs.Even though .
The people who built the LHC and those who might use it in future are not equal sets of people .
The CERN is such a big institution , that there is fluctuation .
Some scientists are even just guests there for some time , so do you really think that all of them ( including those who work abroad and those who have not got enough funding of their projects because of the LHC will just quietly stand by and say nothing ?
) .All people who argued that the LHC is a World Dooms Machine are not physicists especially not particle physicists so why should they understand it better than particle physicists ?
And remember not all particle physicists work for CERN .
There are others and the all say its save .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they had not built the LHC, they would have used the money for other scientific projects.
You could imagine (could you?
) that they would then have just different jobs.Even though.
The people who built the LHC and those who might use it in future are not equal sets of people.
The CERN is such a big institution, that there is fluctuation.
Some scientists are even just guests there for some time, so do you really think that all of them (including those who work abroad and those who have not got enough funding of their projects because of the LHC will just quietly stand by and say nothing?
).All people who argued that the LHC is a World Dooms Machine are not physicists especially not particle physicists so why should they understand it better than particle physicists?
And remember not all particle physicists work for CERN.
There are others and the all say its save.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086028</id>
	<title>can we use a micro-black hole to power a stargate?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258124100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>can we use a micro-black hole to power a stargate? as ZPM's are hard to find.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>can we use a micro-black hole to power a stargate ?
as ZPM 's are hard to find .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>can we use a micro-black hole to power a stargate?
as ZPM's are hard to find.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085872</id>
	<title>Earth novel?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258123020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth\_(novel)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth\_(novel)</a> [wikipedia.org] was such a good book, why must MBH be so boring in reality?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth \ _ ( novel ) [ wikipedia.org ] was such a good book , why must MBH be so boring in reality ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth\_(novel) [wikipedia.org] was such a good book, why must MBH be so boring in reality?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30090226</id>
	<title>Re:But what if slow black holes collide?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1258142880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slow black holes colliding? Plus horrible terror?</p><p>Well, simply think of two Goatse guys slowly riding a double dildo ass-to-ass.</p><p>Now there is some (ir?)rational thing to be afraid of for ya! ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slow black holes colliding ?
Plus horrible terror ? Well , simply think of two Goatse guys slowly riding a double dildo ass-to-ass.Now there is some ( ir ?
) rational thing to be afraid of for ya !
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slow black holes colliding?
Plus horrible terror?Well, simply think of two Goatse guys slowly riding a double dildo ass-to-ass.Now there is some (ir?
)rational thing to be afraid of for ya!
^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086144</id>
	<title>Re:Do they mean a black hole or a singularity?</title>
	<author>ChowRiit</author>
	<datestamp>1258124820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A black hole is any body tightly packed enough that its escape velocity is greater than the speed of light. Because material, as a result of this, can ONLY travel towards the centre of mass (outward travel, sideways travel and staying stationary are all forbidden this therefore HAS to form a singularity, as matter is all forced to head towards and occupy a single point.</p><p>The distance from the object where the escape velocity drops below the speed of light is the event horizon (aka the Schwarzschild radius), within this sphere* no light can escape so we call this sphere the black hole. In the centre of it is the singularity, which is the "true" black-hole.</p><p>All objects have Schwarzschild radii, however this radius is only a "real" radius if it exceeds the radius of the object. Wikipedia claims the Schwarzschild radius of the Earth is 9mm, so Earth would form a black-hole itself if it were compressed to smaller than 9mm in radius.</p><p>The key point is that a "black-hole" is not an object, per se, but a region of space from which light cannot escape. The "object" would be the singularity in the centre. From outside the black-hole, there's no real difference from a star of the same mass in terms of gravity.</p><p>*rotating black holes have a slightly different shape, depends on the speed of rotation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A black hole is any body tightly packed enough that its escape velocity is greater than the speed of light .
Because material , as a result of this , can ONLY travel towards the centre of mass ( outward travel , sideways travel and staying stationary are all forbidden this therefore HAS to form a singularity , as matter is all forced to head towards and occupy a single point.The distance from the object where the escape velocity drops below the speed of light is the event horizon ( aka the Schwarzschild radius ) , within this sphere * no light can escape so we call this sphere the black hole .
In the centre of it is the singularity , which is the " true " black-hole.All objects have Schwarzschild radii , however this radius is only a " real " radius if it exceeds the radius of the object .
Wikipedia claims the Schwarzschild radius of the Earth is 9mm , so Earth would form a black-hole itself if it were compressed to smaller than 9mm in radius.The key point is that a " black-hole " is not an object , per se , but a region of space from which light can not escape .
The " object " would be the singularity in the centre .
From outside the black-hole , there 's no real difference from a star of the same mass in terms of gravity .
* rotating black holes have a slightly different shape , depends on the speed of rotation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A black hole is any body tightly packed enough that its escape velocity is greater than the speed of light.
Because material, as a result of this, can ONLY travel towards the centre of mass (outward travel, sideways travel and staying stationary are all forbidden this therefore HAS to form a singularity, as matter is all forced to head towards and occupy a single point.The distance from the object where the escape velocity drops below the speed of light is the event horizon (aka the Schwarzschild radius), within this sphere* no light can escape so we call this sphere the black hole.
In the centre of it is the singularity, which is the "true" black-hole.All objects have Schwarzschild radii, however this radius is only a "real" radius if it exceeds the radius of the object.
Wikipedia claims the Schwarzschild radius of the Earth is 9mm, so Earth would form a black-hole itself if it were compressed to smaller than 9mm in radius.The key point is that a "black-hole" is not an object, per se, but a region of space from which light cannot escape.
The "object" would be the singularity in the centre.
From outside the black-hole, there's no real difference from a star of the same mass in terms of gravity.
*rotating black holes have a slightly different shape, depends on the speed of rotation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087282</id>
	<title>Re:Do they mean a black hole or a singularity?</title>
	<author>Dare nMc</author>
	<datestamp>1258130280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>were this to happen tomorrow, the Earth and the other planets would continue to orbit the black hole sun exactly as they have</p></div><p>with the theory being that the sun would go sun-&gt;red giant-&gt;supernova-&gt;???-&gt;blackhole.  pretty sure either the redgiant phase or supernova explosion would break the earth up, then most of those pieces would either escape, be caught up by the gravity of further out planets, or be sucked into that black hole.  But sure if a similar sized earth object ended up back into this orbit, it would orbit just like the current earth, very slowly decaying it's orbit until it was sucked into the sun (one theory is that the radiation energy of the sun pushes us away at nearly the same rate as our drag, sans solar radiation how fast would this mass decay???)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>were this to happen tomorrow , the Earth and the other planets would continue to orbit the black hole sun exactly as they havewith the theory being that the sun would go sun- &gt; red giant- &gt; supernova- &gt; ? ? ? - &gt; blackhole .
pretty sure either the redgiant phase or supernova explosion would break the earth up , then most of those pieces would either escape , be caught up by the gravity of further out planets , or be sucked into that black hole .
But sure if a similar sized earth object ended up back into this orbit , it would orbit just like the current earth , very slowly decaying it 's orbit until it was sucked into the sun ( one theory is that the radiation energy of the sun pushes us away at nearly the same rate as our drag , sans solar radiation how fast would this mass decay ? ? ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>were this to happen tomorrow, the Earth and the other planets would continue to orbit the black hole sun exactly as they havewith the theory being that the sun would go sun-&gt;red giant-&gt;supernova-&gt;???-&gt;blackhole.
pretty sure either the redgiant phase or supernova explosion would break the earth up, then most of those pieces would either escape, be caught up by the gravity of further out planets, or be sucked into that black hole.
But sure if a similar sized earth object ended up back into this orbit, it would orbit just like the current earth, very slowly decaying it's orbit until it was sucked into the sun (one theory is that the radiation energy of the sun pushes us away at nearly the same rate as our drag, sans solar radiation how fast would this mass decay???
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086040</id>
	<title>The problem is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258124160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem is, there is cause for real concern. Maybe not with the LHC but with science in general.

1. The universe is vast, and old. It's quite clear that, if life is as common as we think it is, the universe should be filled with ancient civilizations.
2. We have no evidence of any alien life... where are they?
3. We have a very rudimentary understanding of physics.
4. It may very well be that it is common for civilizations to evolve to the point at which we are at but then mistakenly destroy themselves through, what at first appear to be benign experiments. Not saying it will be a micro blackhole... or even the LHC. But we had better watch it. There might be a very simple reason that SETI hasn't found anything yet. They're all dead.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is , there is cause for real concern .
Maybe not with the LHC but with science in general .
1. The universe is vast , and old .
It 's quite clear that , if life is as common as we think it is , the universe should be filled with ancient civilizations .
2. We have no evidence of any alien life... where are they ?
3. We have a very rudimentary understanding of physics .
4. It may very well be that it is common for civilizations to evolve to the point at which we are at but then mistakenly destroy themselves through , what at first appear to be benign experiments .
Not saying it will be a micro blackhole... or even the LHC .
But we had better watch it .
There might be a very simple reason that SETI has n't found anything yet .
They 're all dead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is, there is cause for real concern.
Maybe not with the LHC but with science in general.
1. The universe is vast, and old.
It's quite clear that, if life is as common as we think it is, the universe should be filled with ancient civilizations.
2. We have no evidence of any alien life... where are they?
3. We have a very rudimentary understanding of physics.
4. It may very well be that it is common for civilizations to evolve to the point at which we are at but then mistakenly destroy themselves through, what at first appear to be benign experiments.
Not saying it will be a micro blackhole... or even the LHC.
But we had better watch it.
There might be a very simple reason that SETI hasn't found anything yet.
They're all dead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086180</id>
	<title>Re:Do they mean a black hole or a singularity?</title>
	<author>Aahzimandious</author>
	<datestamp>1258125000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
I hope this helps?  And..  as I understand it...

Mass = Density * Volume

Singularity:  Mass's volume has reached zero.
Blackhole:  The area that a singularity from which light cannot escape from.

If you took the mass of the Earth and compressed it's volume to about the size of a marble you'd get a 'blackhole/singularity'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope this helps ?
And.. as I understand it.. . Mass = Density * Volume Singularity : Mass 's volume has reached zero .
Blackhole : The area that a singularity from which light can not escape from .
If you took the mass of the Earth and compressed it 's volume to about the size of a marble you 'd get a 'blackhole/singularity' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I hope this helps?
And..  as I understand it...

Mass = Density * Volume

Singularity:  Mass's volume has reached zero.
Blackhole:  The area that a singularity from which light cannot escape from.
If you took the mass of the Earth and compressed it's volume to about the size of a marble you'd get a 'blackhole/singularity'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30093088</id>
	<title>Re:But that's how they killed Vulcan...</title>
	<author>amRadioHed</author>
	<datestamp>1258114500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Don't worry. Apparently, from the physical rules shown in the movie, the bigger the ball of red matter is, the less dangerous it is.</p></div></blockquote><p>So it's a homeopathic weapon.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't worry .
Apparently , from the physical rules shown in the movie , the bigger the ball of red matter is , the less dangerous it is.So it 's a homeopathic weapon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't worry.
Apparently, from the physical rules shown in the movie, the bigger the ball of red matter is, the less dangerous it is.So it's a homeopathic weapon.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30090388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30089312</id>
	<title>Re:More Mass = More Suck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258139460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>why are fat girls so good at giving head?</p><p>becuase they <i>have</i> to be</p><p>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why are fat girls so good at giving head ? becuase they have to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why are fat girls so good at giving head?becuase they have to be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30089828</id>
	<title>Re:How Big to be a Threat?</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1258141320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No.</p><p>It would have to be created from a large bit of mass. Enough mass where it has significant gravitation impact on the earth. If you where to get something with that kind of gravity on the earth, you have effectively destroyed the earth.</p><p>Remember Black holes aren't magic, the only have the gravitation force of the mass the created them.</p><p>For example, of Are sun turned into a black hole right now it would be a tiny point with the same gravity, and the earth would still orbit it. Granted, we would all die.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No.It would have to be created from a large bit of mass .
Enough mass where it has significant gravitation impact on the earth .
If you where to get something with that kind of gravity on the earth , you have effectively destroyed the earth.Remember Black holes are n't magic , the only have the gravitation force of the mass the created them.For example , of Are sun turned into a black hole right now it would be a tiny point with the same gravity , and the earth would still orbit it .
Granted , we would all die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.It would have to be created from a large bit of mass.
Enough mass where it has significant gravitation impact on the earth.
If you where to get something with that kind of gravity on the earth, you have effectively destroyed the earth.Remember Black holes aren't magic, the only have the gravitation force of the mass the created them.For example, of Are sun turned into a black hole right now it would be a tiny point with the same gravity, and the earth would still orbit it.
Granted, we would all die.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086194</id>
	<title>Re:Good article, won't stop the panic of the idjit</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1258125060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>How could we not read it like that?!<p><div class="quote"><p>"... if you're a megalomaniac looking for your next globe-eating weapon,... a speedy MBH<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... flying through our planet... will only have a few seconds to accrete the mass of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the Earth<nobr> <wbr></nobr>."</p></div><p> <b>WE'RE DOOMED!</b></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How could we not read it like that ? ! " .. .
if you 're a megalomaniac looking for your next globe-eating weapon,... a speedy MBH ... flying through our planet... will only have a few seconds to accrete the mass of ... the Earth .
" WE 'RE DOOMED !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How could we not read it like that?!"...
if you're a megalomaniac looking for your next globe-eating weapon,... a speedy MBH ... flying through our planet... will only have a few seconds to accrete the mass of ... the Earth .
" WE'RE DOOMED!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087318</id>
	<title>Re:Do they mean a black hole or a singularity?</title>
	<author>Xoltri</author>
	<datestamp>1258130400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That was awesome, thanks!</htmltext>
<tokenext>That was awesome , thanks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was awesome, thanks!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30090770</id>
	<title>Re:More Mass = More Suck</title>
	<author>Desmanthus</author>
	<datestamp>1258145100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You don't have friends.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't have friends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't have friends.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086224</id>
	<title>Re:Evaporate?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1258125240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where does water evaporate to?  Black hole evaporation is not quite the same; it's the release of Hawking radiation, rather than the release of gaseous water molecules, but it's the same general idea.  The substance of the black hole is converted (slowly) into radiation and escapes.  Because energy is just a much less dense version of matter, this means that the black hole loses mass until eventually it doesn't have enough left to remain a black hole.  There's no magic or mystery any more than there is in the slow loss in mass when tritium glows.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where does water evaporate to ?
Black hole evaporation is not quite the same ; it 's the release of Hawking radiation , rather than the release of gaseous water molecules , but it 's the same general idea .
The substance of the black hole is converted ( slowly ) into radiation and escapes .
Because energy is just a much less dense version of matter , this means that the black hole loses mass until eventually it does n't have enough left to remain a black hole .
There 's no magic or mystery any more than there is in the slow loss in mass when tritium glows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where does water evaporate to?
Black hole evaporation is not quite the same; it's the release of Hawking radiation, rather than the release of gaseous water molecules, but it's the same general idea.
The substance of the black hole is converted (slowly) into radiation and escapes.
Because energy is just a much less dense version of matter, this means that the black hole loses mass until eventually it doesn't have enough left to remain a black hole.
There's no magic or mystery any more than there is in the slow loss in mass when tritium glows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085842</id>
	<title>As if!</title>
	<author>Abuzar</author>
	<datestamp>1258122780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, everyone's a physics expert even when dealing with completely unknown phenomena and experiments conducted for the first time in human history.</p><p>Of course they're saying there is no cause for concern, it's their job that's on the line.  Risks to humanity, the planet etc. be damned, we want our LHC!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , everyone 's a physics expert even when dealing with completely unknown phenomena and experiments conducted for the first time in human history.Of course they 're saying there is no cause for concern , it 's their job that 's on the line .
Risks to humanity , the planet etc .
be damned , we want our LHC !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, everyone's a physics expert even when dealing with completely unknown phenomena and experiments conducted for the first time in human history.Of course they're saying there is no cause for concern, it's their job that's on the line.
Risks to humanity, the planet etc.
be damned, we want our LHC!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30090350</id>
	<title>Re:Do they mean a black hole or a singularity?</title>
	<author>stilz2</author>
	<datestamp>1258143180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed on +6 awesome. Thanks very much for your insightful explanation in plain words.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed on + 6 awesome .
Thanks very much for your insightful explanation in plain words .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed on +6 awesome.
Thanks very much for your insightful explanation in plain words.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30142058</id>
	<title>Re:Do they mean a black hole or a singularity?</title>
	<author>phision</author>
	<datestamp>1257081660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>To escape the black hole sun once you were, say, 3.1 km away, you would need to somehow achieve a speed near to the speed of light, which we simply can't do.</p></div><p>Seems the term "escape velocity" is somewhat misinterpreted by many people.<br>
It is actually not needed to achieve the escape velocity. If you manage to achieve and keep up a speed different than zero, in a direction outwards of the center of the object you will "escape" its gravitational field.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To escape the black hole sun once you were , say , 3.1 km away , you would need to somehow achieve a speed near to the speed of light , which we simply ca n't do.Seems the term " escape velocity " is somewhat misinterpreted by many people .
It is actually not needed to achieve the escape velocity .
If you manage to achieve and keep up a speed different than zero , in a direction outwards of the center of the object you will " escape " its gravitational field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To escape the black hole sun once you were, say, 3.1 km away, you would need to somehow achieve a speed near to the speed of light, which we simply can't do.Seems the term "escape velocity" is somewhat misinterpreted by many people.
It is actually not needed to achieve the escape velocity.
If you manage to achieve and keep up a speed different than zero, in a direction outwards of the center of the object you will "escape" its gravitational field.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30089764</id>
	<title>really?</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1258141080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Physicists are getting excited about the possibility of micro-black holes (MBH) being produced by the LHC"</p><p>no, not really. In fact the pretty much dismiss them sine they ran these numbers many years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Physicists are getting excited about the possibility of micro-black holes ( MBH ) being produced by the LHC " no , not really .
In fact the pretty much dismiss them sine they ran these numbers many years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Physicists are getting excited about the possibility of micro-black holes (MBH) being produced by the LHC"no, not really.
In fact the pretty much dismiss them sine they ran these numbers many years ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30089830</id>
	<title>Re:Covered in Brin's \_Earth\_</title>
	<author>cynvision</author>
	<datestamp>1258141320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When the article says something like "tidal generated" black hole, I start thinking of a little string of these MBH swishing up like a current in a pool. Walla! Cosmic string-like series of holes that generate more as they swish by! Sure, they die, complete their life cycle, whatever... but there's always more...</p><p>Now, I think \_Earth\_ needs a re-read...</p><p>I'm still waiting for sub-vocal computer inputs. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When the article says something like " tidal generated " black hole , I start thinking of a little string of these MBH swishing up like a current in a pool .
Walla ! Cosmic string-like series of holes that generate more as they swish by !
Sure , they die , complete their life cycle , whatever... but there 's always more...Now , I think \ _Earth \ _ needs a re-read...I 'm still waiting for sub-vocal computer inputs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the article says something like "tidal generated" black hole, I start thinking of a little string of these MBH swishing up like a current in a pool.
Walla! Cosmic string-like series of holes that generate more as they swish by!
Sure, they die, complete their life cycle, whatever... but there's always more...Now, I think \_Earth\_ needs a re-read...I'm still waiting for sub-vocal computer inputs. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085972</id>
	<title>Re:But what if slow black holes collide?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258123680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>To do this they need to hit each other first. Their cross section is tiny (10^-35m, size of an electron is 16^-15m), they will be moving slowly (about 11km/second if they are created with zero velocity at CERN) - so the chance of them hitting each other is small. If they came across an atom - most of that is empty space; the protons &amp; neutrons are mostly empty space (between the quarks) to something as small as the black hole.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To do this they need to hit each other first .
Their cross section is tiny ( 10 ^ -35m , size of an electron is 16 ^ -15m ) , they will be moving slowly ( about 11km/second if they are created with zero velocity at CERN ) - so the chance of them hitting each other is small .
If they came across an atom - most of that is empty space ; the protons &amp; neutrons are mostly empty space ( between the quarks ) to something as small as the black hole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To do this they need to hit each other first.
Their cross section is tiny (10^-35m, size of an electron is 16^-15m), they will be moving slowly (about 11km/second if they are created with zero velocity at CERN) - so the chance of them hitting each other is small.
If they came across an atom - most of that is empty space; the protons &amp; neutrons are mostly empty space (between the quarks) to something as small as the black hole.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086714</id>
	<title>Yes?</title>
	<author>MBHkewl</author>
	<datestamp>1258127520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone called?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone called ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone called?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086036</id>
	<title>Re:Do they mean a black hole or a singularity?</title>
	<author>Wooky\_linuxer</author>
	<datestamp>1258124160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>substitute massive for dense. BH are dense objects, but they don't need to be massive. As long as you squeeze enough mass in a tiny enough place - hence the theoretical possibility of MBH forming - you have a black hole (pardon me if I oversimplified this).</htmltext>
<tokenext>substitute massive for dense .
BH are dense objects , but they do n't need to be massive .
As long as you squeeze enough mass in a tiny enough place - hence the theoretical possibility of MBH forming - you have a black hole ( pardon me if I oversimplified this ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>substitute massive for dense.
BH are dense objects, but they don't need to be massive.
As long as you squeeze enough mass in a tiny enough place - hence the theoretical possibility of MBH forming - you have a black hole (pardon me if I oversimplified this).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087456</id>
	<title>Re:Study Funded By Black Hole Companies</title>
	<author>AioKits</author>
	<datestamp>1258131120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What people don't realize is that this study was funded by companies that produce black holes.</p></div><p>ACME?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What people do n't realize is that this study was funded by companies that produce black holes.ACME ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What people don't realize is that this study was funded by companies that produce black holes.ACME?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30091542</id>
	<title>Famous last words</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258105380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So we are trying to investigate something we don't fully understand yet, using experiments never done before, looking for forces of nature never observed like this before, but on a theoretical basis we can say with certainty that there are no safety risks.</p><p>Hmmm. I remember accidents happening during the Manhattan project.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So we are trying to investigate something we do n't fully understand yet , using experiments never done before , looking for forces of nature never observed like this before , but on a theoretical basis we can say with certainty that there are no safety risks.Hmmm .
I remember accidents happening during the Manhattan project .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So we are trying to investigate something we don't fully understand yet, using experiments never done before, looking for forces of nature never observed like this before, but on a theoretical basis we can say with certainty that there are no safety risks.Hmmm.
I remember accidents happening during the Manhattan project.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30091102</id>
	<title>Re:Do they mean a black hole or a singularity?</title>
	<author>Avalain</author>
	<datestamp>1258103340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, the example was meant to explain a bit of the physics behind black holes. It's not something that will actually happen to our sun. Yes, the reg giant phase will happen first but it's not really going to break the earth up as much as swallow it. The sun is going to expand until it has a radius of 1AU, which is the size of the orbit of the Earth. Basically the Earth is just going to melt.
<br> <br>
After that the sun will actually shrink and become a white dwarf. It's not big enough to go supernova, and it's not going to become a black hole.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , the example was meant to explain a bit of the physics behind black holes .
It 's not something that will actually happen to our sun .
Yes , the reg giant phase will happen first but it 's not really going to break the earth up as much as swallow it .
The sun is going to expand until it has a radius of 1AU , which is the size of the orbit of the Earth .
Basically the Earth is just going to melt .
After that the sun will actually shrink and become a white dwarf .
It 's not big enough to go supernova , and it 's not going to become a black hole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, the example was meant to explain a bit of the physics behind black holes.
It's not something that will actually happen to our sun.
Yes, the reg giant phase will happen first but it's not really going to break the earth up as much as swallow it.
The sun is going to expand until it has a radius of 1AU, which is the size of the orbit of the Earth.
Basically the Earth is just going to melt.
After that the sun will actually shrink and become a white dwarf.
It's not big enough to go supernova, and it's not going to become a black hole.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086134</id>
	<title>Re:More Mass = More Suck</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1258124760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess it turns out that size DOES matter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess it turns out that size DOES matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess it turns out that size DOES matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30088266</id>
	<title>Re:Good article, won't stop the panic of the idjit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258135020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sadly however, people will read this article</p></div><p>No, they won't.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly however , people will read this articleNo , they wo n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly however, people will read this articleNo, they won't.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086142</id>
	<title>Re:Do they mean a black hole or a singularity?</title>
	<author>necro81</author>
	<datestamp>1258124820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>In principle, any mass, if packed densely enough, could become a black hole.  For each mass - from a cluster of atoms to an entire galaxy - there is a calculable quantity called the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Schwarzschild\_radius&amp;oldid=324511433" title="wikipedia.org">Schwarzschild radius</a> [wikipedia.org].  If you could somehow pack the mass so that it fit inside a volume smaller than that mass's Schwarzschild radius, the force of gravity would invariably overcome all other forces and cause the mass to become a singularity.  The Schwarzschild radius also defines the "edge" of the black hole - if anything, including light, gets closer than one Schwarzschild radius from the central mass, it will not be able to escape.  In other words, at the Schwarzschild radius, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Escape\_velocity&amp;oldid=324918950" title="wikipedia.org">escape velocity</a> [wikipedia.org] is the speed of light.<br> <br>

It is easy to see how the core of a really big  star could collapse on itself in a supernova - there's just so much mass, coupled with the force of the explosion.  However, our own sun could become a black hole - if some as-yet unknown physical process could squeeze its entire mass into a 6-km diameter sphere.  The Schwarzschild radius of one solar mass is about 3 km.  <br> <br>

It is important to note that, were this to happen tomorrow, the Earth and the other planets would continue to orbit the black hole sun <i>exactly</i> as they have done for billions of years.  The gravity of the sun hasn't changed, because its mass hasn't changed.  If you were, however, unfortunate enough to come within 3 km of the center of the black hole sun, that's the last the universe would ever see of you. (As a practical matter, you'd be doomed long before then, simply because no rocket would be powerful enough to bring you away once you got closer than a few thousand kilometers.  To escape the black hole sun once you were, say, 3.1 km away, you would need to somehow achieve a speed near to the speed of light, which we simply can't do.)<br> <br>

It is also important to note that you would not be sucked into a black hole if you came within 3 km of the center of the sun as it exists today, shining hot and bright.  This is because 99.999\% of the mass of the sun lies outside of that 3 km radius and so "doesn't count" in terms of the force of gravity.  Aside from instantly transforming into plasma from the heat, you would actually feel far less gravity than you would on the Moon.  (For reasons why, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shell\_theorem&amp;oldid=314783185" title="wikipedia.org">see here</a> [wikipedia.org].)  Remember: a black hole would exist <i>only if</i> you could compress the whole mass of the sun into that 3-km radius spherical volume.

This can be applied to just about any mass.  The Schwarzschild radius of the Earth is about 9 mm - smaller than a grape.  This gives you a sense of how densely you'd have to pack things if you wanted to make an Earth-mass black hole.  For a pair of protons smashed together at high energies - as in the LHC - I think you need to bring in other areas of physics than just general relativity.  Suffice to say the Schwarzschild radius would be much, much, much smaller than the size of a proton, which in turn is much, much, much smaller than the size of an atom, which is much smaller than the distance between atoms in most solids.  So in order for a micro-black-hole to accumulate mass, it would need to pass very close, on the order of its Schwarzschild radius, to the nucleus of another atom.  At the length scales we are talking about, that's about as likely as me randomly shooting off a bb gun and hitting a passing bird a kilometer away.<br> <br>

So rest easy, the world isn't about to end.<br> <br>

I apologize for the long answer, but I hope it has answered your question.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In principle , any mass , if packed densely enough , could become a black hole .
For each mass - from a cluster of atoms to an entire galaxy - there is a calculable quantity called the Schwarzschild radius [ wikipedia.org ] .
If you could somehow pack the mass so that it fit inside a volume smaller than that mass 's Schwarzschild radius , the force of gravity would invariably overcome all other forces and cause the mass to become a singularity .
The Schwarzschild radius also defines the " edge " of the black hole - if anything , including light , gets closer than one Schwarzschild radius from the central mass , it will not be able to escape .
In other words , at the Schwarzschild radius , the escape velocity [ wikipedia.org ] is the speed of light .
It is easy to see how the core of a really big star could collapse on itself in a supernova - there 's just so much mass , coupled with the force of the explosion .
However , our own sun could become a black hole - if some as-yet unknown physical process could squeeze its entire mass into a 6-km diameter sphere .
The Schwarzschild radius of one solar mass is about 3 km .
It is important to note that , were this to happen tomorrow , the Earth and the other planets would continue to orbit the black hole sun exactly as they have done for billions of years .
The gravity of the sun has n't changed , because its mass has n't changed .
If you were , however , unfortunate enough to come within 3 km of the center of the black hole sun , that 's the last the universe would ever see of you .
( As a practical matter , you 'd be doomed long before then , simply because no rocket would be powerful enough to bring you away once you got closer than a few thousand kilometers .
To escape the black hole sun once you were , say , 3.1 km away , you would need to somehow achieve a speed near to the speed of light , which we simply ca n't do .
) It is also important to note that you would not be sucked into a black hole if you came within 3 km of the center of the sun as it exists today , shining hot and bright .
This is because 99.999 \ % of the mass of the sun lies outside of that 3 km radius and so " does n't count " in terms of the force of gravity .
Aside from instantly transforming into plasma from the heat , you would actually feel far less gravity than you would on the Moon .
( For reasons why , see here [ wikipedia.org ] .
) Remember : a black hole would exist only if you could compress the whole mass of the sun into that 3-km radius spherical volume .
This can be applied to just about any mass .
The Schwarzschild radius of the Earth is about 9 mm - smaller than a grape .
This gives you a sense of how densely you 'd have to pack things if you wanted to make an Earth-mass black hole .
For a pair of protons smashed together at high energies - as in the LHC - I think you need to bring in other areas of physics than just general relativity .
Suffice to say the Schwarzschild radius would be much , much , much smaller than the size of a proton , which in turn is much , much , much smaller than the size of an atom , which is much smaller than the distance between atoms in most solids .
So in order for a micro-black-hole to accumulate mass , it would need to pass very close , on the order of its Schwarzschild radius , to the nucleus of another atom .
At the length scales we are talking about , that 's about as likely as me randomly shooting off a bb gun and hitting a passing bird a kilometer away .
So rest easy , the world is n't about to end .
I apologize for the long answer , but I hope it has answered your question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In principle, any mass, if packed densely enough, could become a black hole.
For each mass - from a cluster of atoms to an entire galaxy - there is a calculable quantity called the Schwarzschild radius [wikipedia.org].
If you could somehow pack the mass so that it fit inside a volume smaller than that mass's Schwarzschild radius, the force of gravity would invariably overcome all other forces and cause the mass to become a singularity.
The Schwarzschild radius also defines the "edge" of the black hole - if anything, including light, gets closer than one Schwarzschild radius from the central mass, it will not be able to escape.
In other words, at the Schwarzschild radius, the escape velocity [wikipedia.org] is the speed of light.
It is easy to see how the core of a really big  star could collapse on itself in a supernova - there's just so much mass, coupled with the force of the explosion.
However, our own sun could become a black hole - if some as-yet unknown physical process could squeeze its entire mass into a 6-km diameter sphere.
The Schwarzschild radius of one solar mass is about 3 km.
It is important to note that, were this to happen tomorrow, the Earth and the other planets would continue to orbit the black hole sun exactly as they have done for billions of years.
The gravity of the sun hasn't changed, because its mass hasn't changed.
If you were, however, unfortunate enough to come within 3 km of the center of the black hole sun, that's the last the universe would ever see of you.
(As a practical matter, you'd be doomed long before then, simply because no rocket would be powerful enough to bring you away once you got closer than a few thousand kilometers.
To escape the black hole sun once you were, say, 3.1 km away, you would need to somehow achieve a speed near to the speed of light, which we simply can't do.
) 

It is also important to note that you would not be sucked into a black hole if you came within 3 km of the center of the sun as it exists today, shining hot and bright.
This is because 99.999\% of the mass of the sun lies outside of that 3 km radius and so "doesn't count" in terms of the force of gravity.
Aside from instantly transforming into plasma from the heat, you would actually feel far less gravity than you would on the Moon.
(For reasons why, see here [wikipedia.org].
)  Remember: a black hole would exist only if you could compress the whole mass of the sun into that 3-km radius spherical volume.
This can be applied to just about any mass.
The Schwarzschild radius of the Earth is about 9 mm - smaller than a grape.
This gives you a sense of how densely you'd have to pack things if you wanted to make an Earth-mass black hole.
For a pair of protons smashed together at high energies - as in the LHC - I think you need to bring in other areas of physics than just general relativity.
Suffice to say the Schwarzschild radius would be much, much, much smaller than the size of a proton, which in turn is much, much, much smaller than the size of an atom, which is much smaller than the distance between atoms in most solids.
So in order for a micro-black-hole to accumulate mass, it would need to pass very close, on the order of its Schwarzschild radius, to the nucleus of another atom.
At the length scales we are talking about, that's about as likely as me randomly shooting off a bb gun and hitting a passing bird a kilometer away.
So rest easy, the world isn't about to end.
I apologize for the long answer, but I hope it has answered your question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087490</id>
	<title>Re:Do they mean a black hole or a singularity?</title>
	<author>MadLad</author>
	<datestamp>1258131240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is why Slashdot should have +6 awesome</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why Slashdot should have + 6 awesome</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why Slashdot should have +6 awesome</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30089432</id>
	<title>Re:3rd Option</title>
	<author>Kryptonian Jor-El</author>
	<datestamp>1258139820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't you hate it when you're the 2nd person to comment on a story, but the 1st comment gets replied to so many times, you're pushed so far down you get rated redundant...

Thus I give you the slashdot comment system</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't you hate it when you 're the 2nd person to comment on a story , but the 1st comment gets replied to so many times , you 're pushed so far down you get rated redundant.. . Thus I give you the slashdot comment system</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't you hate it when you're the 2nd person to comment on a story, but the 1st comment gets replied to so many times, you're pushed so far down you get rated redundant...

Thus I give you the slashdot comment system</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30092380</id>
	<title>Re:Do they mean a black hole or a singularity?</title>
	<author>IorDMUX</author>
	<datestamp>1258109820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The GP was not referring to the sun going supernova, but rather a thought experiment on gravitation:  <p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...if some as-yet unknown physical process could squeeze [the sun's] entire mass into a 6-km diameter sphere.</p></div><p>Of course, there would be plenty of changes we don't care about for the though experiment--such as the loss of solar wind, the cessation of light and heat (aside from radiation of things falling into the black hole)--but they only serve to cloud the fact that the gravitational field observed by the planets remains unchanged for this new black-hole-sun, as long as the total mass and center of gravity of the sun remains unchanged.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The GP was not referring to the sun going supernova , but rather a thought experiment on gravitation : ...if some as-yet unknown physical process could squeeze [ the sun 's ] entire mass into a 6-km diameter sphere.Of course , there would be plenty of changes we do n't care about for the though experiment--such as the loss of solar wind , the cessation of light and heat ( aside from radiation of things falling into the black hole ) --but they only serve to cloud the fact that the gravitational field observed by the planets remains unchanged for this new black-hole-sun , as long as the total mass and center of gravity of the sun remains unchanged .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The GP was not referring to the sun going supernova, but rather a thought experiment on gravitation:   ...if some as-yet unknown physical process could squeeze [the sun's] entire mass into a 6-km diameter sphere.Of course, there would be plenty of changes we don't care about for the though experiment--such as the loss of solar wind, the cessation of light and heat (aside from radiation of things falling into the black hole)--but they only serve to cloud the fact that the gravitational field observed by the planets remains unchanged for this new black-hole-sun, as long as the total mass and center of gravity of the sun remains unchanged.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086660</id>
	<title>Re:Good article, won't stop the panic of the idjit</title>
	<author>jeffmeden</author>
	<datestamp>1258127160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why worry?  I am a firm believer that causality is forcing the LHC to not work, since if it did, it would un-create itself across the entire timeline.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why worry ?
I am a firm believer that causality is forcing the LHC to not work , since if it did , it would un-create itself across the entire timeline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why worry?
I am a firm believer that causality is forcing the LHC to not work, since if it did, it would un-create itself across the entire timeline.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086732</id>
	<title>Re:But that's how they killed Vulcan...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258127580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They do not use red matter in the LHC, they use it on bread slices. It is called strawberry-jam. And it has only negative effects (or should I say positive effects) on the mass of physicists (when used extensively).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They do not use red matter in the LHC , they use it on bread slices .
It is called strawberry-jam .
And it has only negative effects ( or should I say positive effects ) on the mass of physicists ( when used extensively ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They do not use red matter in the LHC, they use it on bread slices.
It is called strawberry-jam.
And it has only negative effects (or should I say positive effects) on the mass of physicists (when used extensively).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085990</id>
	<title>Well...</title>
	<author>hyperion2010</author>
	<datestamp>1258123800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sucks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sucks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30093870</id>
	<title>Re:As if!</title>
	<author>Abuzar</author>
	<datestamp>1258120560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Heh, asshole moderators... can't tell the difference between a difference of opinion and trolling. With such intellectually challenged homo sapiens in existence, I shudder to think what frame of mind those who work at the LHC... no, let's not go there.  Some things just shouldn't be imagined.  Suffice it to say that if major disaster does strike humanity, it shan't be such a great loss.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Heh , asshole moderators... ca n't tell the difference between a difference of opinion and trolling .
With such intellectually challenged homo sapiens in existence , I shudder to think what frame of mind those who work at the LHC... no , let 's not go there .
Some things just should n't be imagined .
Suffice it to say that if major disaster does strike humanity , it sha n't be such a great loss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heh, asshole moderators... can't tell the difference between a difference of opinion and trolling.
With such intellectually challenged homo sapiens in existence, I shudder to think what frame of mind those who work at the LHC... no, let's not go there.
Some things just shouldn't be imagined.
Suffice it to say that if major disaster does strike humanity, it shan't be such a great loss.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086408</id>
	<title>All the speculation is driving me crazy.</title>
	<author>Tibor the Hun</author>
	<datestamp>1258126200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Come on guys, this is <b>not</b> rocket science!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on guys , this is not rocket science !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on guys, this is not rocket science!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087940</id>
	<title>How Big to be a Threat?</title>
	<author>careysub</author>
	<datestamp>1258133460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Granted that very small black holes cannot eat fast enough to threaten Earth, this raises the question: "How large would a black hole have to be to be a threat to Earth"?</p><p>Can any one generate a black hole mass/time-to-eat-the Earth table? Enquiring minds want to know!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Granted that very small black holes can not eat fast enough to threaten Earth , this raises the question : " How large would a black hole have to be to be a threat to Earth " ? Can any one generate a black hole mass/time-to-eat-the Earth table ?
Enquiring minds want to know !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Granted that very small black holes cannot eat fast enough to threaten Earth, this raises the question: "How large would a black hole have to be to be a threat to Earth"?Can any one generate a black hole mass/time-to-eat-the Earth table?
Enquiring minds want to know!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30089402</id>
	<title>Re:More Mass = More Suck</title>
	<author>lonesome phreak</author>
	<datestamp>1258139700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>well, it's as I've always said "big girls like to eat!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>well , it 's as I 've always said " big girls like to eat !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well, it's as I've always said "big girls like to eat!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30090150</id>
	<title>Extremely old news.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1258142520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can remember this being explained in a much better way in <em>the very first article I ever read about the LHC</em>, back when the start of construction was planned for the next weeks.!</p><p>It's just that the sensationalist retards of course ignored that part from then on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can remember this being explained in a much better way in the very first article I ever read about the LHC , back when the start of construction was planned for the next weeks .
! It 's just that the sensationalist retards of course ignored that part from then on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can remember this being explained in a much better way in the very first article I ever read about the LHC, back when the start of construction was planned for the next weeks.
!It's just that the sensationalist retards of course ignored that part from then on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086656</id>
	<title>Curses, foiled again!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258127160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There goes another billion dollars. Back to the drawing board.</p><p>Meh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There goes another billion dollars .
Back to the drawing board.Meh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There goes another billion dollars.
Back to the drawing board.Meh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086034</id>
	<title>Re:Do they mean a black hole or a singularity?</title>
	<author>Ihlosi</author>
	<datestamp>1258124100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If you've got a singularity (worst case in our example) that's the mass of the earth, how's that supposed to stop any light/matter/etc escaping? It's not massive enough!</i> </p><p>A singularity with one Earth mass will be \_tiny\_. That means light and matter can get so close to it that they won't be able to escape. Of course, if you're one Earth radius away from it, it'll just exert as much gravitational pull as the real Earth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 've got a singularity ( worst case in our example ) that 's the mass of the earth , how 's that supposed to stop any light/matter/etc escaping ?
It 's not massive enough !
A singularity with one Earth mass will be \ _tiny \ _ .
That means light and matter can get so close to it that they wo n't be able to escape .
Of course , if you 're one Earth radius away from it , it 'll just exert as much gravitational pull as the real Earth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you've got a singularity (worst case in our example) that's the mass of the earth, how's that supposed to stop any light/matter/etc escaping?
It's not massive enough!
A singularity with one Earth mass will be \_tiny\_.
That means light and matter can get so close to it that they won't be able to escape.
Of course, if you're one Earth radius away from it, it'll just exert as much gravitational pull as the real Earth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086188</id>
	<title>MBH = mega black hole?</title>
	<author>MacAnkka</author>
	<datestamp>1258125060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Am I the only one who reads MBH as mega black hole, not micro black hole? It's confusing.

If the prefix is micro, it would make sense to use a letter that actually means micro, instead of a letter that represents mega.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one who reads MBH as mega black hole , not micro black hole ?
It 's confusing .
If the prefix is micro , it would make sense to use a letter that actually means micro , instead of a letter that represents mega .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one who reads MBH as mega black hole, not micro black hole?
It's confusing.
If the prefix is micro, it would make sense to use a letter that actually means micro, instead of a letter that represents mega.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086070</id>
	<title>Re:Do they mean a black hole or a singularity?</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1258124340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well lets think for a 2D black hole. As 3d Ones are hard to picture in your head.  So Imagine a plane of streachy rubber. That will represent normal space time. Then you take 2 objects say a bowling ball and a pin needle.  You put the bowling ball down its massive weight has distored space time and made a large hole where an object say Rowling a marble across the plain when approaching the bowling ball would fall in the well.  Next you take a pin needle you create a very small hole with the same angles as the bowling ball but much smaller you take that marble and role it its gravity force will either roll right over it and not causing a major problem or attract the smaller pins gravitational force and just make the marble just a little bit more massive but it wouldn't create a black hole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well lets think for a 2D black hole .
As 3d Ones are hard to picture in your head .
So Imagine a plane of streachy rubber .
That will represent normal space time .
Then you take 2 objects say a bowling ball and a pin needle .
You put the bowling ball down its massive weight has distored space time and made a large hole where an object say Rowling a marble across the plain when approaching the bowling ball would fall in the well .
Next you take a pin needle you create a very small hole with the same angles as the bowling ball but much smaller you take that marble and role it its gravity force will either roll right over it and not causing a major problem or attract the smaller pins gravitational force and just make the marble just a little bit more massive but it would n't create a black hole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well lets think for a 2D black hole.
As 3d Ones are hard to picture in your head.
So Imagine a plane of streachy rubber.
That will represent normal space time.
Then you take 2 objects say a bowling ball and a pin needle.
You put the bowling ball down its massive weight has distored space time and made a large hole where an object say Rowling a marble across the plain when approaching the bowling ball would fall in the well.
Next you take a pin needle you create a very small hole with the same angles as the bowling ball but much smaller you take that marble and role it its gravity force will either roll right over it and not causing a major problem or attract the smaller pins gravitational force and just make the marble just a little bit more massive but it wouldn't create a black hole.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085902</id>
	<title>WMD not yet, but perhaps someday?</title>
	<author>burtosis</author>
	<datestamp>1258123200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't doubt the science behind the LHC or the scenarios presented.  But I wonder if it is possible to make a device (probaby insanely expensive and massive like the LHC) whereby the MHB could be accurately force fed like a veal calf untill it hit a critical point (tons - ktons - Mtons) of mass and would be a worthy earth destroyer.  Nuclear weapons just destroy a little area and make the world far less habitable.  A good size black hole could</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't doubt the science behind the LHC or the scenarios presented .
But I wonder if it is possible to make a device ( probaby insanely expensive and massive like the LHC ) whereby the MHB could be accurately force fed like a veal calf untill it hit a critical point ( tons - ktons - Mtons ) of mass and would be a worthy earth destroyer .
Nuclear weapons just destroy a little area and make the world far less habitable .
A good size black hole could</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't doubt the science behind the LHC or the scenarios presented.
But I wonder if it is possible to make a device (probaby insanely expensive and massive like the LHC) whereby the MHB could be accurately force fed like a veal calf untill it hit a critical point (tons - ktons - Mtons) of mass and would be a worthy earth destroyer.
Nuclear weapons just destroy a little area and make the world far less habitable.
A good size black hole could</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085910</id>
	<title>Re:Do they mean a black hole or a singularity?</title>
	<author>vadim\_t</author>
	<datestamp>1258123260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It will trap light alright, just not at the Earth's radius.</p><p>If all of the Earth was squeezed into a tiny point the gravity would remain the same for things that are where the ground used to be.</p><p>But as you get closer to it, it will grow, until you can't escape anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It will trap light alright , just not at the Earth 's radius.If all of the Earth was squeezed into a tiny point the gravity would remain the same for things that are where the ground used to be.But as you get closer to it , it will grow , until you ca n't escape anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It will trap light alright, just not at the Earth's radius.If all of the Earth was squeezed into a tiny point the gravity would remain the same for things that are where the ground used to be.But as you get closer to it, it will grow, until you can't escape anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086632</id>
	<title>Evaporate?</title>
	<author>wcrowe</author>
	<datestamp>1258126980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>...where it will evaporate...</i></p><p>I'm no physicist, by any stretch of the imagination, but black holes "evaporating" just doesn't sound right to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...where it will evaporate...I 'm no physicist , by any stretch of the imagination , but black holes " evaporating " just does n't sound right to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...where it will evaporate...I'm no physicist, by any stretch of the imagination, but black holes "evaporating" just doesn't sound right to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086164</id>
	<title>Re:Lots of speculation.</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1258125000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It could be wrong, but it can only be wrong in one direction.  The kind of collision that the LHC is going to be producing happens all the time in the upper atmosphere as cosmic rays hit.  There are three possibilities:
<ol>
<li>The theory is approximately correct.</li>
<li>Micro black holes aren't formed at all at this energy level.</li>
<li>Micro black holes evaporate much faster than expected (unlikely, because this would produce more radiation than we observe).</li>
</ol></htmltext>
<tokenext>It could be wrong , but it can only be wrong in one direction .
The kind of collision that the LHC is going to be producing happens all the time in the upper atmosphere as cosmic rays hit .
There are three possibilities : The theory is approximately correct .
Micro black holes are n't formed at all at this energy level .
Micro black holes evaporate much faster than expected ( unlikely , because this would produce more radiation than we observe ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It could be wrong, but it can only be wrong in one direction.
The kind of collision that the LHC is going to be producing happens all the time in the upper atmosphere as cosmic rays hit.
There are three possibilities:

The theory is approximately correct.
Micro black holes aren't formed at all at this energy level.
Micro black holes evaporate much faster than expected (unlikely, because this would produce more radiation than we observe).
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30089178</id>
	<title>Gravity is not weak!</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1258138980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Gravity is much, much weaker than the subatomic electrostatic forces that hold subatomic particles apart.</i></p><p>It really isn't, not in the way that you mean.  Yes the Gravitational Constant is much smaller than Coulomb's Constant, and yes the gravitational attraction between two protons is much weaker than the electrostatic repulsion between two protons.</p><p>However as soon as you do anything more complicated than compare two charged particles, things change.  The reason is because the two forces bind to different properties of matter, and while the charge property can be both positive and negative, mass is only positive.  So while the gravitational force between two hydrogen atoms is very small, it is bigger than the electrostatic force between them because they are carrying no net charge.</p><p>Thus gravity can easily be the stronger force in any given situation, because the forces of opposite charges will cancel, while their masses will only add together.  Put enough mass together, and the gravitational force can easily outstrip every other force.</p><p><i>In essence, what you're claiming in a black hole is a neutron star - a single massive nucleus - packed together as tightly as is physically possible for matter to be packed. This is impossible on the most basic level: the larger an atomic nucleus gets, the more unstable it is. There are no stable atomic nuclei any larger than lead-208.</i></p><p>Kind of an ironic statement, since the electrostatic force is much, much weaker than the strong nuclear force which holds the protons together, and yet it is exactly because of the electrostatic force overcoming the strong force that these atoms become unstable.  Because the strong force is only stronger in the same naive way in which electromagnetism is stronger than gravity.</p><p>Also ironic because gravity overcoming electrostatic forces is also responsible for the existence of all of those large, unstable atoms in the first place.  Fusing even two hydrogen atoms requires overcoming the repulsion of their nuclei when very close, and it's the intense heat and pressure in the core of a star -- caused by its immense mass -- which allows this.  As the star over time fuses heavier elements the energy released decreases until lead where it crosses over into negative.  At this point all the fusion energy that was holding the mass of the star up fails, and all that mass in the outer portions of the star collapses in <i>due to gravity</i>, and that transfer of energy fuses atoms much, much heavier than lead and leads to all the unstable elements we find on earth plus many that don't last long enough to become part of a planet.</p><p>Gravity, the "weakest" force, creates atoms which the strong interaction, the "strongest" force, cannot hold together!</p><p>So, obviously the situation is more complex than just making a blanket statement that one force is stronger than the other.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gravity is much , much weaker than the subatomic electrostatic forces that hold subatomic particles apart.It really is n't , not in the way that you mean .
Yes the Gravitational Constant is much smaller than Coulomb 's Constant , and yes the gravitational attraction between two protons is much weaker than the electrostatic repulsion between two protons.However as soon as you do anything more complicated than compare two charged particles , things change .
The reason is because the two forces bind to different properties of matter , and while the charge property can be both positive and negative , mass is only positive .
So while the gravitational force between two hydrogen atoms is very small , it is bigger than the electrostatic force between them because they are carrying no net charge.Thus gravity can easily be the stronger force in any given situation , because the forces of opposite charges will cancel , while their masses will only add together .
Put enough mass together , and the gravitational force can easily outstrip every other force.In essence , what you 're claiming in a black hole is a neutron star - a single massive nucleus - packed together as tightly as is physically possible for matter to be packed .
This is impossible on the most basic level : the larger an atomic nucleus gets , the more unstable it is .
There are no stable atomic nuclei any larger than lead-208.Kind of an ironic statement , since the electrostatic force is much , much weaker than the strong nuclear force which holds the protons together , and yet it is exactly because of the electrostatic force overcoming the strong force that these atoms become unstable .
Because the strong force is only stronger in the same naive way in which electromagnetism is stronger than gravity.Also ironic because gravity overcoming electrostatic forces is also responsible for the existence of all of those large , unstable atoms in the first place .
Fusing even two hydrogen atoms requires overcoming the repulsion of their nuclei when very close , and it 's the intense heat and pressure in the core of a star -- caused by its immense mass -- which allows this .
As the star over time fuses heavier elements the energy released decreases until lead where it crosses over into negative .
At this point all the fusion energy that was holding the mass of the star up fails , and all that mass in the outer portions of the star collapses in due to gravity , and that transfer of energy fuses atoms much , much heavier than lead and leads to all the unstable elements we find on earth plus many that do n't last long enough to become part of a planet.Gravity , the " weakest " force , creates atoms which the strong interaction , the " strongest " force , can not hold together ! So , obviously the situation is more complex than just making a blanket statement that one force is stronger than the other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gravity is much, much weaker than the subatomic electrostatic forces that hold subatomic particles apart.It really isn't, not in the way that you mean.
Yes the Gravitational Constant is much smaller than Coulomb's Constant, and yes the gravitational attraction between two protons is much weaker than the electrostatic repulsion between two protons.However as soon as you do anything more complicated than compare two charged particles, things change.
The reason is because the two forces bind to different properties of matter, and while the charge property can be both positive and negative, mass is only positive.
So while the gravitational force between two hydrogen atoms is very small, it is bigger than the electrostatic force between them because they are carrying no net charge.Thus gravity can easily be the stronger force in any given situation, because the forces of opposite charges will cancel, while their masses will only add together.
Put enough mass together, and the gravitational force can easily outstrip every other force.In essence, what you're claiming in a black hole is a neutron star - a single massive nucleus - packed together as tightly as is physically possible for matter to be packed.
This is impossible on the most basic level: the larger an atomic nucleus gets, the more unstable it is.
There are no stable atomic nuclei any larger than lead-208.Kind of an ironic statement, since the electrostatic force is much, much weaker than the strong nuclear force which holds the protons together, and yet it is exactly because of the electrostatic force overcoming the strong force that these atoms become unstable.
Because the strong force is only stronger in the same naive way in which electromagnetism is stronger than gravity.Also ironic because gravity overcoming electrostatic forces is also responsible for the existence of all of those large, unstable atoms in the first place.
Fusing even two hydrogen atoms requires overcoming the repulsion of their nuclei when very close, and it's the intense heat and pressure in the core of a star -- caused by its immense mass -- which allows this.
As the star over time fuses heavier elements the energy released decreases until lead where it crosses over into negative.
At this point all the fusion energy that was holding the mass of the star up fails, and all that mass in the outer portions of the star collapses in due to gravity, and that transfer of energy fuses atoms much, much heavier than lead and leads to all the unstable elements we find on earth plus many that don't last long enough to become part of a planet.Gravity, the "weakest" force, creates atoms which the strong interaction, the "strongest" force, cannot hold together!So, obviously the situation is more complex than just making a blanket statement that one force is stronger than the other.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30089946</id>
	<title>Re:Evaporate?</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1258141800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bekenstein-Hawking radiation</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bekenstein-Hawking radiation</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bekenstein-Hawking radiation</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086230</id>
	<title>Re:Evaporate?</title>
	<author>Maximum Prophet</author>
	<datestamp>1258125240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Photons pop out of the vacuum all the time.  A photon and an anti-photon (or do they call it a virtual photon) will appear at the same time, and as long as the pair doesn't stick around longer than the mass * Plank's constant, conservation of mass is preserved.
<br> <br>
If the photon and anti-photon appear at the edge of a black hole, sometimes the photon goes off, and the anti-photon gets sucked into the black hole where it cancels some of the mass of the black hole.  Thus it looks like the BH is radiating and evaporating, but nothing actual leaves the BH.
<br> <br>
*Note:  I've left out some details, and my terminology might be off.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Photons pop out of the vacuum all the time .
A photon and an anti-photon ( or do they call it a virtual photon ) will appear at the same time , and as long as the pair does n't stick around longer than the mass * Plank 's constant , conservation of mass is preserved .
If the photon and anti-photon appear at the edge of a black hole , sometimes the photon goes off , and the anti-photon gets sucked into the black hole where it cancels some of the mass of the black hole .
Thus it looks like the BH is radiating and evaporating , but nothing actual leaves the BH .
* Note : I 've left out some details , and my terminology might be off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Photons pop out of the vacuum all the time.
A photon and an anti-photon (or do they call it a virtual photon) will appear at the same time, and as long as the pair doesn't stick around longer than the mass * Plank's constant, conservation of mass is preserved.
If the photon and anti-photon appear at the edge of a black hole, sometimes the photon goes off, and the anti-photon gets sucked into the black hole where it cancels some of the mass of the black hole.
Thus it looks like the BH is radiating and evaporating, but nothing actual leaves the BH.
*Note:  I've left out some details, and my terminology might be off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086348</id>
	<title>Re:As if!</title>
	<author>ArsenneLupin</author>
	<datestamp>1258125780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Of course they're saying there is no cause for concern, it's their job that's on the line. Risks to humanity, the planet etc. be damned, we want our LHC!</p></div><p>Fortunately, we can rely on our trusty <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/11/06/0824213/LHC-Shut-Down-Again-mdash-By-Baguette-Dropping-Bird" title="slashdot.org">baguette dropping birds</a> [slashdot.org] to save humanity from its certain fate by annihilation. Vive la France!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course they 're saying there is no cause for concern , it 's their job that 's on the line .
Risks to humanity , the planet etc .
be damned , we want our LHC ! Fortunately , we can rely on our trusty baguette dropping birds [ slashdot.org ] to save humanity from its certain fate by annihilation .
Vive la France !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course they're saying there is no cause for concern, it's their job that's on the line.
Risks to humanity, the planet etc.
be damned, we want our LHC!Fortunately, we can rely on our trusty baguette dropping birds [slashdot.org] to save humanity from its certain fate by annihilation.
Vive la France!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30104668</id>
	<title>Re:Do they mean a black hole or a singularity?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258318500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>At the length scales we are talking about, that's about as likely as me randomly shooting off a bb gun and hitting a passing bird a kilometer away.</p></div></blockquote><p>There isn't just one bird out there and that bb gun just keeps on shooting, once you hit a bird the mass increases and the chances of hitting yet another bird gets bigger. That's the conclusion I draw from your analogy as someone who doesn't know squat about these things. Then there's the issue that black hole research is currently based on untested theories and cannot be tested (safely) within a foreseeable future. That's what your dealing with. All I know is that black holes are the single most destructive force we know of and from my point of view there is no room for error, and scientists do make mistakes (remember the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon\_core" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">demon core</a> [wikipedia.org]?).</p><p>I'm sure you're correct, that there's nothing to worry about. But I still have that nagging feeling that we're dealing with something we simply don't know enough about, and the stakes are waaay too high.</p><p>Oh, and thanks for the long post, it did a lot to set my mind at ease.. but still.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At the length scales we are talking about , that 's about as likely as me randomly shooting off a bb gun and hitting a passing bird a kilometer away.There is n't just one bird out there and that bb gun just keeps on shooting , once you hit a bird the mass increases and the chances of hitting yet another bird gets bigger .
That 's the conclusion I draw from your analogy as someone who does n't know squat about these things .
Then there 's the issue that black hole research is currently based on untested theories and can not be tested ( safely ) within a foreseeable future .
That 's what your dealing with .
All I know is that black holes are the single most destructive force we know of and from my point of view there is no room for error , and scientists do make mistakes ( remember the demon core [ wikipedia.org ] ?
) .I 'm sure you 're correct , that there 's nothing to worry about .
But I still have that nagging feeling that we 're dealing with something we simply do n't know enough about , and the stakes are waaay too high.Oh , and thanks for the long post , it did a lot to set my mind at ease.. but still .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the length scales we are talking about, that's about as likely as me randomly shooting off a bb gun and hitting a passing bird a kilometer away.There isn't just one bird out there and that bb gun just keeps on shooting, once you hit a bird the mass increases and the chances of hitting yet another bird gets bigger.
That's the conclusion I draw from your analogy as someone who doesn't know squat about these things.
Then there's the issue that black hole research is currently based on untested theories and cannot be tested (safely) within a foreseeable future.
That's what your dealing with.
All I know is that black holes are the single most destructive force we know of and from my point of view there is no room for error, and scientists do make mistakes (remember the demon core [wikipedia.org]?
).I'm sure you're correct, that there's nothing to worry about.
But I still have that nagging feeling that we're dealing with something we simply don't know enough about, and the stakes are waaay too high.Oh, and thanks for the long post, it did a lot to set my mind at ease.. but still.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30089290</id>
	<title>Black Holes for Time Travel and Warp Drive</title>
	<author>smist08</author>
	<datestamp>1258139400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seems to me that the only possible ways to develop a time machine or starship warp drive are from manufacturing and harnessing Black Holes. We need to poke a singularity in the fabric of the universe to get around some hard limits like the speed of light. The trick then is how to arrange them geometrically to get the desired result (and how to control them to do this). Seems like really worthwhile research.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems to me that the only possible ways to develop a time machine or starship warp drive are from manufacturing and harnessing Black Holes .
We need to poke a singularity in the fabric of the universe to get around some hard limits like the speed of light .
The trick then is how to arrange them geometrically to get the desired result ( and how to control them to do this ) .
Seems like really worthwhile research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems to me that the only possible ways to develop a time machine or starship warp drive are from manufacturing and harnessing Black Holes.
We need to poke a singularity in the fabric of the universe to get around some hard limits like the speed of light.
The trick then is how to arrange them geometrically to get the desired result (and how to control them to do this).
Seems like really worthwhile research.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087032</id>
	<title>Poor Larry Niven</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1258129080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>first Ringworld was claimed to be impossible, and now the same happens with his 70's story "The Hole Man", where what happens is essentially involves a micro black hole falling into a planet. Science is slowly killing hard sci-fi.</htmltext>
<tokenext>first Ringworld was claimed to be impossible , and now the same happens with his 70 's story " The Hole Man " , where what happens is essentially involves a micro black hole falling into a planet .
Science is slowly killing hard sci-fi .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>first Ringworld was claimed to be impossible, and now the same happens with his 70's story "The Hole Man", where what happens is essentially involves a micro black hole falling into a planet.
Science is slowly killing hard sci-fi.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085752</id>
	<title>But that's how they killed Vulcan...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258122000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>... I  guess someone forgot to tell Nero
<p>
How much red matter does the LHC use anyway?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... I guess someone forgot to tell Nero How much red matter does the LHC use anyway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... I  guess someone forgot to tell Nero

How much red matter does the LHC use anyway?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086898</id>
	<title>Re:Earth novel?</title>
	<author>Java Pimp</author>
	<datestamp>1258128420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've never read that one. However, I found <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Singularity-Bill-DeSmedt/dp/0974573442/" title="amazon.com">Singularity</a> [amazon.com] by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill\_DeSmedt" title="wikipedia.org">Bill DeSmedt</a> [wikipedia.org] to be quite good. Sci-Fi thriller centering around the theory that the Tunguska event was caused by a micro-black hole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never read that one .
However , I found Singularity [ amazon.com ] by Bill DeSmedt [ wikipedia.org ] to be quite good .
Sci-Fi thriller centering around the theory that the Tunguska event was caused by a micro-black hole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never read that one.
However, I found Singularity [amazon.com] by Bill DeSmedt [wikipedia.org] to be quite good.
Sci-Fi thriller centering around the theory that the Tunguska event was caused by a micro-black hole.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30092032</id>
	<title>Re:But that's how they killed Vulcan...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258107900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; How much red matter does the LHC use anyway?</p><p>Less than the mass of the moon by a fair whack.  And that'd be about the minimum mass of a black hole that can be stable.  The micro black holes they'll be (maybe) creating will last so short a time they'll only be observable by their decay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; How much red matter does the LHC use anyway ? Less than the mass of the moon by a fair whack .
And that 'd be about the minimum mass of a black hole that can be stable .
The micro black holes they 'll be ( maybe ) creating will last so short a time they 'll only be observable by their decay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; How much red matter does the LHC use anyway?Less than the mass of the moon by a fair whack.
And that'd be about the minimum mass of a black hole that can be stable.
The micro black holes they'll be (maybe) creating will last so short a time they'll only be observable by their decay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30088020</id>
	<title>Re:More Mass = More Suck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258133760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dude, that's always been the case - but eventually you'll have to open your eyes...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude , that 's always been the case - but eventually you 'll have to open your eyes.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude, that's always been the case - but eventually you'll have to open your eyes...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085756</id>
	<title>Re:Lots of speculation.</title>
	<author>stjobe</author>
	<datestamp>1258122000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, the fear of the unknown. Yes, a classic. "I don't understand it, and I don't believe that they do either".</p><p>I've got news for you; this is as good (or should i say precise) model of these things as you are going to get right now. It's the cutting edge of our understanding of how MBHs work, and \_that\_ understanding in turn depends on a quite large, quite solid foundation of math and physics.</p><p>So please, this isn't speculation, it's SCIENCE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , the fear of the unknown .
Yes , a classic .
" I do n't understand it , and I do n't believe that they do either " .I 've got news for you ; this is as good ( or should i say precise ) model of these things as you are going to get right now .
It 's the cutting edge of our understanding of how MBHs work , and \ _that \ _ understanding in turn depends on a quite large , quite solid foundation of math and physics.So please , this is n't speculation , it 's SCIENCE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, the fear of the unknown.
Yes, a classic.
"I don't understand it, and I don't believe that they do either".I've got news for you; this is as good (or should i say precise) model of these things as you are going to get right now.
It's the cutting edge of our understanding of how MBHs work, and \_that\_ understanding in turn depends on a quite large, quite solid foundation of math and physics.So please, this isn't speculation, it's SCIENCE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086128</id>
	<title>Re:Lots of speculation.</title>
	<author>Trails</author>
	<datestamp>1258124700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I've got news for you; this is as good (or should i say precise) model of these things as you are going to get right now. It's the cutting edge of our understanding of how MBHs work, and \_that\_ understanding in turn depends on a quite large, quite solid foundation of <b>math, physics and observations</b>.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Fixed that for ya.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got news for you ; this is as good ( or should i say precise ) model of these things as you are going to get right now .
It 's the cutting edge of our understanding of how MBHs work , and \ _that \ _ understanding in turn depends on a quite large , quite solid foundation of math , physics and observations .
Fixed that for ya .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've got news for you; this is as good (or should i say precise) model of these things as you are going to get right now.
It's the cutting edge of our understanding of how MBHs work, and \_that\_ understanding in turn depends on a quite large, quite solid foundation of math, physics and observations.
Fixed that for ya.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086056</id>
	<title>Re:Do they mean a black hole or a singularity?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258124220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://library.thinkquest.org/C007571/english/advance/intro1.htm" title="thinkquest.org">Back holes aren't black -- after Hawking they shine!</a> [thinkquest.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Back holes are n't black -- after Hawking they shine !
[ thinkquest.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back holes aren't black -- after Hawking they shine!
[thinkquest.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30092668</id>
	<title>Re:Earth novel?</title>
	<author>LionMage</author>
	<datestamp>1258111680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good book, but the summary on Wikipedia is incorrect and misleading.  It turns out that the so-called micro black hole wasn't actually a black hole, but an even more exotic synthetic object.  (The Wikipedia article also implies that this object was human-made, when in fact it was clearly established later in the book that it is made by someone intelligent somewhere, just not humans.)  The object was exotic enough that it had some properties that a MBH does not have, allowing it to be sent over presumably long interstellar distances without evaporating along the way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good book , but the summary on Wikipedia is incorrect and misleading .
It turns out that the so-called micro black hole was n't actually a black hole , but an even more exotic synthetic object .
( The Wikipedia article also implies that this object was human-made , when in fact it was clearly established later in the book that it is made by someone intelligent somewhere , just not humans .
) The object was exotic enough that it had some properties that a MBH does not have , allowing it to be sent over presumably long interstellar distances without evaporating along the way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good book, but the summary on Wikipedia is incorrect and misleading.
It turns out that the so-called micro black hole wasn't actually a black hole, but an even more exotic synthetic object.
(The Wikipedia article also implies that this object was human-made, when in fact it was clearly established later in the book that it is made by someone intelligent somewhere, just not humans.
)  The object was exotic enough that it had some properties that a MBH does not have, allowing it to be sent over presumably long interstellar distances without evaporating along the way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30089292</id>
	<title>Re:The problem is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258139400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>5. All other civilization noticed the lack of evidence of advanced civilizations. They concluded that all other civilizations must have died due to stupid scientific experiments. They banned all science and their development halted, thus leaving them undetectable for all other civilizations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>5 .
All other civilization noticed the lack of evidence of advanced civilizations .
They concluded that all other civilizations must have died due to stupid scientific experiments .
They banned all science and their development halted , thus leaving them undetectable for all other civilizations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>5.
All other civilization noticed the lack of evidence of advanced civilizations.
They concluded that all other civilizations must have died due to stupid scientific experiments.
They banned all science and their development halted, thus leaving them undetectable for all other civilizations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086940</id>
	<title>Re:Good article, won't stop the panic of the idjit</title>
	<author>Plekto</author>
	<datestamp>1258128540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>Sadly however, people will read this article and will still freak out about how the LHC is going to doom us all.</b></p><p>Still, the LHC *can* make an fairly impressive mess of the test chamber area something goes wrong.  I'd recommend being at least a few miles away from it while it's running.</p><p><a href="http://www.scientificblogging.com/big\_science\_gambles/interview\_professor\_otto\_rossler\_takes\_on\_the\_lhc" title="scientificblogging.com">http://www.scientificblogging.com/big\_science\_gambles/interview\_professor\_otto\_rossler\_takes\_on\_the\_lhc</a> [scientificblogging.com]<br>And interesting discussion on this that I found.  It's very likely that the resulting explosion would "save the planet" as a side effect, but make for a very impressive crater as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly however , people will read this article and will still freak out about how the LHC is going to doom us all.Still , the LHC * can * make an fairly impressive mess of the test chamber area something goes wrong .
I 'd recommend being at least a few miles away from it while it 's running.http : //www.scientificblogging.com/big \ _science \ _gambles/interview \ _professor \ _otto \ _rossler \ _takes \ _on \ _the \ _lhc [ scientificblogging.com ] And interesting discussion on this that I found .
It 's very likely that the resulting explosion would " save the planet " as a side effect , but make for a very impressive crater as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly however, people will read this article and will still freak out about how the LHC is going to doom us all.Still, the LHC *can* make an fairly impressive mess of the test chamber area something goes wrong.
I'd recommend being at least a few miles away from it while it's running.http://www.scientificblogging.com/big\_science\_gambles/interview\_professor\_otto\_rossler\_takes\_on\_the\_lhc [scientificblogging.com]And interesting discussion on this that I found.
It's very likely that the resulting explosion would "save the planet" as a side effect, but make for a very impressive crater as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086186</id>
	<title>Re:Good article, won't stop the panic of the idjit</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1258125060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, but those are the same people who think aliens are traveling across the vast distances of interstellar space to play ass-grab with rednecks in trailer parks. You have about as much chance of educating the unwashed masses as you do of convincing them to become washed masses. Best to keep sedating them with sports.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but those are the same people who think aliens are traveling across the vast distances of interstellar space to play ass-grab with rednecks in trailer parks .
You have about as much chance of educating the unwashed masses as you do of convincing them to become washed masses .
Best to keep sedating them with sports .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but those are the same people who think aliens are traveling across the vast distances of interstellar space to play ass-grab with rednecks in trailer parks.
You have about as much chance of educating the unwashed masses as you do of convincing them to become washed masses.
Best to keep sedating them with sports.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30088472</id>
	<title>hmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258136220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if the earth became a black hole with a Schwartzchild radius of 9mm, would it evaporate and if so how long would it take?</p><p>It pays to be prepared</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if the earth became a black hole with a Schwartzchild radius of 9mm , would it evaporate and if so how long would it take ? It pays to be prepared</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if the earth became a black hole with a Schwartzchild radius of 9mm, would it evaporate and if so how long would it take?It pays to be prepared</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086082</id>
	<title>The author sounds so sure of himself..</title>
	<author>buttle2000</author>
	<datestamp>1258124400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>..that he's got to be wrong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>..that he 's got to be wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..that he's got to be wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087582</id>
	<title>Why are you using a PC and internet?</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1258131600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Optic fibers, transistors, structures in modern microchips hitting quantum effects more and more (requiring workarounds), magnetoresistive effect in HDDs, and so on...all speculation to you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Optic fibers , transistors , structures in modern microchips hitting quantum effects more and more ( requiring workarounds ) , magnetoresistive effect in HDDs , and so on...all speculation to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Optic fibers, transistors, structures in modern microchips hitting quantum effects more and more (requiring workarounds), magnetoresistive effect in HDDs, and so on...all speculation to you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086822</id>
	<title>Been Done</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1258128060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TFA calculates the likely results based on higher dimensional brane physics. It was done earlier in more classical relativity maths and the results summarized in Alan Boyle's Cosmic Log. The max mass was greater and thus life time longer. Still, mass and accretion never crossed the limit that would allow it to reach whatever they call critical mass for these thing. The example given was that if it were charged and it were trapped within the electron cloud of an atom (both conditions lending it additional life span), it would circulate there on the order of weeks before encountering an electron which it could then consume. Even if it did so it would evaporate before it could hit the run away point, and would likely evaporate before eating even one electron. The specific results were different but the conclusion the same - too small to live long enough to do any damage.</p><p>Another point made in Cosmic Log (I don't recall if it was the same person/calculations) was that quantum black holes (a more correct descriptor than 'mini-') of the mass and life span hypothesized would be likely to occur regularly in the atmosphere due to incoming primary cosmic rays. Those have been impacting the Earth for billions of years, and we're still here. The hypothesized Hawking radiation is not obvious, thus these may not even be occurring. In any case, their creation would be a highly improbable event.</p><p>That last assertion is strictly conjecture based on calculations by my Brambleweeny 57 sub-meson brain. Now if you'll excuse me I'm for a nice hot cup of tea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA calculates the likely results based on higher dimensional brane physics .
It was done earlier in more classical relativity maths and the results summarized in Alan Boyle 's Cosmic Log .
The max mass was greater and thus life time longer .
Still , mass and accretion never crossed the limit that would allow it to reach whatever they call critical mass for these thing .
The example given was that if it were charged and it were trapped within the electron cloud of an atom ( both conditions lending it additional life span ) , it would circulate there on the order of weeks before encountering an electron which it could then consume .
Even if it did so it would evaporate before it could hit the run away point , and would likely evaporate before eating even one electron .
The specific results were different but the conclusion the same - too small to live long enough to do any damage.Another point made in Cosmic Log ( I do n't recall if it was the same person/calculations ) was that quantum black holes ( a more correct descriptor than 'mini- ' ) of the mass and life span hypothesized would be likely to occur regularly in the atmosphere due to incoming primary cosmic rays .
Those have been impacting the Earth for billions of years , and we 're still here .
The hypothesized Hawking radiation is not obvious , thus these may not even be occurring .
In any case , their creation would be a highly improbable event.That last assertion is strictly conjecture based on calculations by my Brambleweeny 57 sub-meson brain .
Now if you 'll excuse me I 'm for a nice hot cup of tea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA calculates the likely results based on higher dimensional brane physics.
It was done earlier in more classical relativity maths and the results summarized in Alan Boyle's Cosmic Log.
The max mass was greater and thus life time longer.
Still, mass and accretion never crossed the limit that would allow it to reach whatever they call critical mass for these thing.
The example given was that if it were charged and it were trapped within the electron cloud of an atom (both conditions lending it additional life span), it would circulate there on the order of weeks before encountering an electron which it could then consume.
Even if it did so it would evaporate before it could hit the run away point, and would likely evaporate before eating even one electron.
The specific results were different but the conclusion the same - too small to live long enough to do any damage.Another point made in Cosmic Log (I don't recall if it was the same person/calculations) was that quantum black holes (a more correct descriptor than 'mini-') of the mass and life span hypothesized would be likely to occur regularly in the atmosphere due to incoming primary cosmic rays.
Those have been impacting the Earth for billions of years, and we're still here.
The hypothesized Hawking radiation is not obvious, thus these may not even be occurring.
In any case, their creation would be a highly improbable event.That last assertion is strictly conjecture based on calculations by my Brambleweeny 57 sub-meson brain.
Now if you'll excuse me I'm for a nice hot cup of tea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086176</id>
	<title>Gotta Love the Author</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258125000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TFA's author has surely done his black hole research.  Quoting:</p><p>"What's more, I haven't seen any black holes float around my neighborhood recently."</p><p>I'm sure he meant some kind of gravitational lensing effect, or maybe some kind of high-energy radiation from an accretion disk or gas jet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA 's author has surely done his black hole research .
Quoting : " What 's more , I have n't seen any black holes float around my neighborhood recently .
" I 'm sure he meant some kind of gravitational lensing effect , or maybe some kind of high-energy radiation from an accretion disk or gas jet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA's author has surely done his black hole research.
Quoting:"What's more, I haven't seen any black holes float around my neighborhood recently.
"I'm sure he meant some kind of gravitational lensing effect, or maybe some kind of high-energy radiation from an accretion disk or gas jet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086206</id>
	<title>Re:Evaporate?</title>
	<author>ChowRiit</author>
	<datestamp>1258125120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Particles. A hand-waving description of what happens is as follows:</p><p>Pairs of particles (one matter, one antimatter) form randomly near the event horizon. One quantum-tunnels out of the black-hole and so appears to an observer outside the black-hole to have been emitted. Therefore, to conserve energy, the other particle must have negative energy and thus the black-hole loses a tiny parcel of energy (and thus mass).</p><p>The main point is that, because the particle was formed near the event horizon and didn't come from the black-hole itself, it carries no information out - thus, while the black-hole loses mass, no information can escape.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Particles .
A hand-waving description of what happens is as follows : Pairs of particles ( one matter , one antimatter ) form randomly near the event horizon .
One quantum-tunnels out of the black-hole and so appears to an observer outside the black-hole to have been emitted .
Therefore , to conserve energy , the other particle must have negative energy and thus the black-hole loses a tiny parcel of energy ( and thus mass ) .The main point is that , because the particle was formed near the event horizon and did n't come from the black-hole itself , it carries no information out - thus , while the black-hole loses mass , no information can escape .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Particles.
A hand-waving description of what happens is as follows:Pairs of particles (one matter, one antimatter) form randomly near the event horizon.
One quantum-tunnels out of the black-hole and so appears to an observer outside the black-hole to have been emitted.
Therefore, to conserve energy, the other particle must have negative energy and thus the black-hole loses a tiny parcel of energy (and thus mass).The main point is that, because the particle was formed near the event horizon and didn't come from the black-hole itself, it carries no information out - thus, while the black-hole loses mass, no information can escape.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087852</id>
	<title>Re:But that's how they killed Vulcan...</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1258132980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if you mix Black Hole with Red matter, you get Dark Red Matter?</p><p>Science is Awesome!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if you mix Black Hole with Red matter , you get Dark Red Matter ? Science is Awesome !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if you mix Black Hole with Red matter, you get Dark Red Matter?Science is Awesome!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085824</id>
	<title>Re:More Mass = More Suck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258122660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and more mass = deeper suckage</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and more mass = deeper suckage</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and more mass = deeper suckage</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30090210</id>
	<title>Re:More Mass = More Suck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258142760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, let me guess! Can I? Yay! It's...</p><p>Because they are the only girls that you have the balls to talk to? ^^</p><p>(On a more serious note: I also find girls that are a little chubby are more needy and nastier at sex. ^^ Which to me is more natural than the fake "Me? I don't like sex." bullshit, that really hot girls have to spread to fend of the guys. Then again, if you just plow straight trough that with just not taking things so seriously, having fun with her and you, and get behind it, all that does not matter anymore anyway.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:))</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , let me guess !
Can I ?
Yay ! It 's...Because they are the only girls that you have the balls to talk to ?
^ ^ ( On a more serious note : I also find girls that are a little chubby are more needy and nastier at sex .
^ ^ Which to me is more natural than the fake " Me ?
I do n't like sex .
" bullshit , that really hot girls have to spread to fend of the guys .
Then again , if you just plow straight trough that with just not taking things so seriously , having fun with her and you , and get behind it , all that does not matter anymore anyway .
: ) )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, let me guess!
Can I?
Yay! It's...Because they are the only girls that you have the balls to talk to?
^^(On a more serious note: I also find girls that are a little chubby are more needy and nastier at sex.
^^ Which to me is more natural than the fake "Me?
I don't like sex.
" bullshit, that really hot girls have to spread to fend of the guys.
Then again, if you just plow straight trough that with just not taking things so seriously, having fun with her and you, and get behind it, all that does not matter anymore anyway.
:))</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086752</id>
	<title>The Hole Man</title>
	<author>R2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1258127640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's good to know that they can still be used to kill your nemesis and NOT destroy the Earth (or Mars).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's good to know that they can still be used to kill your nemesis and NOT destroy the Earth ( or Mars ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's good to know that they can still be used to kill your nemesis and NOT destroy the Earth (or Mars).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086982</id>
	<title>Article is slightly wrong</title>
	<author>Viol8</author>
	<datestamp>1258128780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A mini black hole will only "exert a near-zero gravitational pull on matter" if the matter is somewhat further away that the schwartzchild radius. If it gets anywhere near that then it'll be anything but non zero. After all , if the black hole had almost no gravity it couldn't hold light in and therefore by definition wouldn't be a black hole. I suspect the physicists and banking on the black hole travelling through atoms in the same way that for example neutrinos do - in that the atom to them is effectively empty space with a tiny compact nucleus which is so small that the chances of a direct hit are minimum. We have no absolute guarantee however that a black hole will behave the same way as an uncharged elementary particle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A mini black hole will only " exert a near-zero gravitational pull on matter " if the matter is somewhat further away that the schwartzchild radius .
If it gets anywhere near that then it 'll be anything but non zero .
After all , if the black hole had almost no gravity it could n't hold light in and therefore by definition would n't be a black hole .
I suspect the physicists and banking on the black hole travelling through atoms in the same way that for example neutrinos do - in that the atom to them is effectively empty space with a tiny compact nucleus which is so small that the chances of a direct hit are minimum .
We have no absolute guarantee however that a black hole will behave the same way as an uncharged elementary particle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A mini black hole will only "exert a near-zero gravitational pull on matter" if the matter is somewhat further away that the schwartzchild radius.
If it gets anywhere near that then it'll be anything but non zero.
After all , if the black hole had almost no gravity it couldn't hold light in and therefore by definition wouldn't be a black hole.
I suspect the physicists and banking on the black hole travelling through atoms in the same way that for example neutrinos do - in that the atom to them is effectively empty space with a tiny compact nucleus which is so small that the chances of a direct hit are minimum.
We have no absolute guarantee however that a black hole will behave the same way as an uncharged elementary particle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085750</id>
	<title>Good article, won't stop the panic of the idjits</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258121940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sadly however, people will read this article and will still freak out about how the LHC is going to doom us all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly however , people will read this article and will still freak out about how the LHC is going to doom us all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly however, people will read this article and will still freak out about how the LHC is going to doom us all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30088866</id>
	<title>Well, I suppose...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258137780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I could part with one doomsday device and still be feared.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could part with one doomsday device and still be feared .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I could part with one doomsday device and still be feared.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085998</id>
	<title>Re:Lots of speculation.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258123860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>And yet it could be wrong. That's all the previous posts are saying. What would've happened if people got attached to the cutting edge understanding of gravity and electromagnetics during the late 1800's? Stop being a scientific arse and admit that you - or scientists - don't know everything. If they did, there would be no point in building the LHC after all. Science is an exercise in LEARNING.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And yet it could be wrong .
That 's all the previous posts are saying .
What would 've happened if people got attached to the cutting edge understanding of gravity and electromagnetics during the late 1800 's ?
Stop being a scientific arse and admit that you - or scientists - do n't know everything .
If they did , there would be no point in building the LHC after all .
Science is an exercise in LEARNING .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yet it could be wrong.
That's all the previous posts are saying.
What would've happened if people got attached to the cutting edge understanding of gravity and electromagnetics during the late 1800's?
Stop being a scientific arse and admit that you - or scientists - don't know everything.
If they did, there would be no point in building the LHC after all.
Science is an exercise in LEARNING.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086382</id>
	<title>Re:The problem is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258126020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To answer point 2, current evidence is that human radio signals will be distorted by the heliopause at the edge of the solar system such that they are undetectable from outside. Therefore, an incredibly strong and likely custom-built communication system would be needed to penetrate deep space and be detectable by aliens.</p><p>Secondly, while the Universe might be vast, we can only really stand a chance of picking up signals from within the Milky Way (and even then only fairly nearby, excluding stupendously powerful transmitters, perhaps), so the number of stars that could potentially signal us is vastly reduced.</p><p>Lastly, you have to limit that to only stars with habitable planets on which life has formed and evolved to a high level than ours, and then transmitted signals of sufficient power that reached Earth during the 50 or so years we've been listening.</p><p>Don't get me wrong, I think it's well worth using SETI etc to look but I don't think we should be shocked that we haven't found anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To answer point 2 , current evidence is that human radio signals will be distorted by the heliopause at the edge of the solar system such that they are undetectable from outside .
Therefore , an incredibly strong and likely custom-built communication system would be needed to penetrate deep space and be detectable by aliens.Secondly , while the Universe might be vast , we can only really stand a chance of picking up signals from within the Milky Way ( and even then only fairly nearby , excluding stupendously powerful transmitters , perhaps ) , so the number of stars that could potentially signal us is vastly reduced.Lastly , you have to limit that to only stars with habitable planets on which life has formed and evolved to a high level than ours , and then transmitted signals of sufficient power that reached Earth during the 50 or so years we 've been listening.Do n't get me wrong , I think it 's well worth using SETI etc to look but I do n't think we should be shocked that we have n't found anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To answer point 2, current evidence is that human radio signals will be distorted by the heliopause at the edge of the solar system such that they are undetectable from outside.
Therefore, an incredibly strong and likely custom-built communication system would be needed to penetrate deep space and be detectable by aliens.Secondly, while the Universe might be vast, we can only really stand a chance of picking up signals from within the Milky Way (and even then only fairly nearby, excluding stupendously powerful transmitters, perhaps), so the number of stars that could potentially signal us is vastly reduced.Lastly, you have to limit that to only stars with habitable planets on which life has formed and evolved to a high level than ours, and then transmitted signals of sufficient power that reached Earth during the 50 or so years we've been listening.Don't get me wrong, I think it's well worth using SETI etc to look but I don't think we should be shocked that we haven't found anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087810</id>
	<title>MEGAMAID</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1258132860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Suck! Suck! Suck!</p><p>Sorry...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Suck !
Suck ! Suck ! Sorry... : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Suck!
Suck! Suck!Sorry... :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086592</id>
	<title>Get your crowbars ready.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258126800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm more worried about the possibility of a resonance cascade.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm more worried about the possibility of a resonance cascade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm more worried about the possibility of a resonance cascade.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086018</id>
	<title>Re:Lots of speculation.</title>
	<author>Yvan256</author>
	<datestamp>1258124100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In this case it's quite different. It's not religious zealots crying wolf at something they don't understand. It's rational people, some of them scientists, saying that we really don't know for sure, that our current knowledge <em>could</em> be flawed. A real scientist should always be ready to question our current knowledge.</p><p>Another way to put it: if we were so sure that what we know is 100\% correct then we wouldn't need to build the LHC to test our theories in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In this case it 's quite different .
It 's not religious zealots crying wolf at something they do n't understand .
It 's rational people , some of them scientists , saying that we really do n't know for sure , that our current knowledge could be flawed .
A real scientist should always be ready to question our current knowledge.Another way to put it : if we were so sure that what we know is 100 \ % correct then we would n't need to build the LHC to test our theories in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this case it's quite different.
It's not religious zealots crying wolf at something they don't understand.
It's rational people, some of them scientists, saying that we really don't know for sure, that our current knowledge could be flawed.
A real scientist should always be ready to question our current knowledge.Another way to put it: if we were so sure that what we know is 100\% correct then we wouldn't need to build the LHC to test our theories in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30089372</id>
	<title>Re:More Mass = More Suck</title>
	<author>Hillgiant</author>
	<datestamp>1258139580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Similarly:</p><p>Bigger cushion = Sweeter pushin'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Similarly : Bigger cushion = Sweeter pushin'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Similarly:Bigger cushion = Sweeter pushin'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085930</id>
	<title>Study Funded By Black Hole Companies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258123440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What people don't realize is that this study was funded by companies that produce black holes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What people do n't realize is that this study was funded by companies that produce black holes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What people don't realize is that this study was funded by companies that produce black holes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087160</id>
	<title>Re:The problem is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258129680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lets assume there was intelligent life out there. If they were as stupid as we are. They might have killed themselves, because they hate each other (as we do) and therefore they terrorize each other (as we do). Also they might be just as stupid as we are and then they polluted the environment to a point that they could not survive or they flooded their planet. Also cultures do not exists for ever and species do not exist for ever. So if they died out because some part of them mutated in the wrong direction (there are similar possible problems in the human genome) they lost their ability to reproduce.</p><p>On the other hand they just might be smarter than we are nd therefore they decided not to talk to these backward apes as long as they are not able to leave there solar system. While one part of the aliens bet on self-destruction of mankind due to ignorance and stupidity, the other half is more optimistic and hopes we will evolve culturally.</p><p>To make it short: Doubt that science will kill us. It will be ignorance and hatred and greed or any other deadly sin the catholics came up with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven\_deadly\_sins]:<br>- Extravagance includes: waste of resources through excessive use of luxuries and debauchery. You could also say defining yourselves by the goods you posses leads into consumption of things. If this gets excessive it is a sin.<br>- Gluttony includes: Means nothing more than you should not eat and drink too much (or the wrong stuff). If you do so, this results illnesses, affects agriculture, and results in a waste of resources.<br>- Greed: Well were greed can lead to should be clear, as greed was one of the main courses for the financial crisis we are all in right now.<br>-  Acedia: Well depression could be a bad thing in life so it is good to fix such issues instead of going deeper into them. However, this also means that we should not cause other people to get depressed, because we do not care about them.<br>- Wrath: refers to anger or rage and is the main course for problems in our world. In many cases selfishness feeds anger in your own or in other people.<br>- Pride: This should not be confused with "to be proud of something you accomplished". However, if you turn someone down just to look better, or if you behave narcissistic (which results in bad feelings in other people) you are sinning this sin. It is also part of every chauvinistic concept like racism of fascism.</p><p>To make it short: I guess, we will destroy us because we are so full of our selves. A catastrophic event created by the sciences is much less possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets assume there was intelligent life out there .
If they were as stupid as we are .
They might have killed themselves , because they hate each other ( as we do ) and therefore they terrorize each other ( as we do ) .
Also they might be just as stupid as we are and then they polluted the environment to a point that they could not survive or they flooded their planet .
Also cultures do not exists for ever and species do not exist for ever .
So if they died out because some part of them mutated in the wrong direction ( there are similar possible problems in the human genome ) they lost their ability to reproduce.On the other hand they just might be smarter than we are nd therefore they decided not to talk to these backward apes as long as they are not able to leave there solar system .
While one part of the aliens bet on self-destruction of mankind due to ignorance and stupidity , the other half is more optimistic and hopes we will evolve culturally.To make it short : Doubt that science will kill us .
It will be ignorance and hatred and greed or any other deadly sin the catholics came up with [ http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven \ _deadly \ _sins ] : - Extravagance includes : waste of resources through excessive use of luxuries and debauchery .
You could also say defining yourselves by the goods you posses leads into consumption of things .
If this gets excessive it is a sin.- Gluttony includes : Means nothing more than you should not eat and drink too much ( or the wrong stuff ) .
If you do so , this results illnesses , affects agriculture , and results in a waste of resources.- Greed : Well were greed can lead to should be clear , as greed was one of the main courses for the financial crisis we are all in right now.- Acedia : Well depression could be a bad thing in life so it is good to fix such issues instead of going deeper into them .
However , this also means that we should not cause other people to get depressed , because we do not care about them.- Wrath : refers to anger or rage and is the main course for problems in our world .
In many cases selfishness feeds anger in your own or in other people.- Pride : This should not be confused with " to be proud of something you accomplished " .
However , if you turn someone down just to look better , or if you behave narcissistic ( which results in bad feelings in other people ) you are sinning this sin .
It is also part of every chauvinistic concept like racism of fascism.To make it short : I guess , we will destroy us because we are so full of our selves .
A catastrophic event created by the sciences is much less possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets assume there was intelligent life out there.
If they were as stupid as we are.
They might have killed themselves, because they hate each other (as we do) and therefore they terrorize each other (as we do).
Also they might be just as stupid as we are and then they polluted the environment to a point that they could not survive or they flooded their planet.
Also cultures do not exists for ever and species do not exist for ever.
So if they died out because some part of them mutated in the wrong direction (there are similar possible problems in the human genome) they lost their ability to reproduce.On the other hand they just might be smarter than we are nd therefore they decided not to talk to these backward apes as long as they are not able to leave there solar system.
While one part of the aliens bet on self-destruction of mankind due to ignorance and stupidity, the other half is more optimistic and hopes we will evolve culturally.To make it short: Doubt that science will kill us.
It will be ignorance and hatred and greed or any other deadly sin the catholics came up with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven\_deadly\_sins]:- Extravagance includes: waste of resources through excessive use of luxuries and debauchery.
You could also say defining yourselves by the goods you posses leads into consumption of things.
If this gets excessive it is a sin.- Gluttony includes: Means nothing more than you should not eat and drink too much (or the wrong stuff).
If you do so, this results illnesses, affects agriculture, and results in a waste of resources.- Greed: Well were greed can lead to should be clear, as greed was one of the main courses for the financial crisis we are all in right now.-  Acedia: Well depression could be a bad thing in life so it is good to fix such issues instead of going deeper into them.
However, this also means that we should not cause other people to get depressed, because we do not care about them.- Wrath: refers to anger or rage and is the main course for problems in our world.
In many cases selfishness feeds anger in your own or in other people.- Pride: This should not be confused with "to be proud of something you accomplished".
However, if you turn someone down just to look better, or if you behave narcissistic (which results in bad feelings in other people) you are sinning this sin.
It is also part of every chauvinistic concept like racism of fascism.To make it short: I guess, we will destroy us because we are so full of our selves.
A catastrophic event created by the sciences is much less possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085730</id>
	<title>3rd Option</title>
	<author>Kryptonian Jor-El</author>
	<datestamp>1258121820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or it destroys the whole planet!!!!111!!11!!1!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or it destroys the whole planet ! ! ! ! 111 ! ! 11 ! ! 1 !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or it destroys the whole planet!!!!111!!11!!1!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086508</id>
	<title>Re:Lots of speculation.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258126560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The math that suggests that a quantum black hole will evaporate in an instant may be fairly advanced, but the math showing that even if Hawking is completely wrong such a black hole would have no noticeable effect on the earth over a 13 billion year period is not all that advanced.</p><p>Then there's simple logic. While LHC may produce the most powerful collisions ever under our control, nature routinely produces much more powerful collisions including cosmic rays. Clearly, in billions of years none of this has resulted in a planet eating black hole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The math that suggests that a quantum black hole will evaporate in an instant may be fairly advanced , but the math showing that even if Hawking is completely wrong such a black hole would have no noticeable effect on the earth over a 13 billion year period is not all that advanced.Then there 's simple logic .
While LHC may produce the most powerful collisions ever under our control , nature routinely produces much more powerful collisions including cosmic rays .
Clearly , in billions of years none of this has resulted in a planet eating black hole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The math that suggests that a quantum black hole will evaporate in an instant may be fairly advanced, but the math showing that even if Hawking is completely wrong such a black hole would have no noticeable effect on the earth over a 13 billion year period is not all that advanced.Then there's simple logic.
While LHC may produce the most powerful collisions ever under our control, nature routinely produces much more powerful collisions including cosmic rays.
Clearly, in billions of years none of this has resulted in a planet eating black hole.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087128</id>
	<title>Financial Offer</title>
	<author>arthurpaliden</author>
	<datestamp>1258129560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>A week before they turn it on to produce the MBH and destroy the Earth I will buy anyones home for 5 cents on the dollar so they can spend their last week in a continuous state of Party.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A week before they turn it on to produce the MBH and destroy the Earth I will buy anyones home for 5 cents on the dollar so they can spend their last week in a continuous state of Party .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A week before they turn it on to produce the MBH and destroy the Earth I will buy anyones home for 5 cents on the dollar so they can spend their last week in a continuous state of Party.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085944</id>
	<title>Re:But what if slow black holes collide?</title>
	<author>bcmm</author>
	<datestamp>1258123500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have you considered religion?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you considered religion ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you considered religion?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30096006</id>
	<title>Re:Study Funded By Black Hole Companies</title>
	<author>sjwt</author>
	<datestamp>1258194060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No study has ever conclusively linked MBH's with cancer, in fact it has been proven by the Acadamy of MBH reserch that MBH's can lead to weight loss. -Nick Naylor</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No study has ever conclusively linked MBH 's with cancer , in fact it has been proven by the Acadamy of MBH reserch that MBH 's can lead to weight loss .
-Nick Naylor</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No study has ever conclusively linked MBH's with cancer, in fact it has been proven by the Acadamy of MBH reserch that MBH's can lead to weight loss.
-Nick Naylor</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086432</id>
	<title>Re:Study Funded By Black Hole Companies</title>
	<author>sakdoctor</author>
	<datestamp>1258126260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A company that produces black holes needs a bailout. It's too big to fail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A company that produces black holes needs a bailout .
It 's too big to fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A company that produces black holes needs a bailout.
It's too big to fail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087580</id>
	<title>Re:Study Funded By Black Hole Companies</title>
	<author>mpdolan37</author>
	<datestamp>1258131600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I was going to be crashing cars for a living I would like to know what the results of crashing cars would be.  I would likely pay for a few tests to see exaclty what that entails...

maybe I'm just cautious that way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I was going to be crashing cars for a living I would like to know what the results of crashing cars would be .
I would likely pay for a few tests to see exaclty what that entails.. . maybe I 'm just cautious that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I was going to be crashing cars for a living I would like to know what the results of crashing cars would be.
I would likely pay for a few tests to see exaclty what that entails...

maybe I'm just cautious that way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086820</id>
	<title>Evaporate?</title>
	<author>azav</author>
	<datestamp>1258128000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If a black hole absorbs all within its gravitational field including energy (light) , then how exactly does it evaporate?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If a black hole absorbs all within its gravitational field including energy ( light ) , then how exactly does it evaporate ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a black hole absorbs all within its gravitational field including energy (light) , then how exactly does it evaporate?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085796</id>
	<title>Do they mean a black hole or a singularity?</title>
	<author>jimboindeutchland</author>
	<datestamp>1258122480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I'm sure there's somebody on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. who can answer this:<br> <br>

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought to be a black hole you had to be 2 things.<br>
1. a singularity<br>
2. heavy/massive enough to stop anything from escaping<br> <br>

If you've got a singularity (worst case in our example) that's the mass of the earth, how's that supposed to stop any light/matter/etc escaping?  It's not massive enough!<br> <br>

or am I missing something.<br> <br>

Also, please excuse my lack of correct terminology.  IANAAP
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure there 's somebody on / .
who can answer this : Correct me if I 'm wrong , but I thought to be a black hole you had to be 2 things .
1. a singularity 2. heavy/massive enough to stop anything from escaping If you 've got a singularity ( worst case in our example ) that 's the mass of the earth , how 's that supposed to stop any light/matter/etc escaping ?
It 's not massive enough !
or am I missing something .
Also , please excuse my lack of correct terminology .
IANAAP</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I'm sure there's somebody on /.
who can answer this: 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought to be a black hole you had to be 2 things.
1. a singularity
2. heavy/massive enough to stop anything from escaping 

If you've got a singularity (worst case in our example) that's the mass of the earth, how's that supposed to stop any light/matter/etc escaping?
It's not massive enough!
or am I missing something.
Also, please excuse my lack of correct terminology.
IANAAP
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30090550</id>
	<title>The sun won't ever go black hole</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258144020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The sun won't ever go black hole because there's not enough mass to overcome the electron repulsion between iron atoms.</p><p>The sun isn't big enough to become a supernova either, since the remains of the star AFTER burning all the fusion products would have to be heavier than the sun is NOW (and it will lose mass as it reaches red giant stage).</p><p>And since the earth would orbit further away if the sun were lighter but the total energy (gravitational potential + kinetic) were the same for the earth, there's a good chance the earth would spiral out as the sun loses mass into its red giant phase and not get burned inside the sun's larger atmosphere, even though that would extend beyond the current orbit of the earth.</p><p>And there's no such thing as "drag" as you describe it. Photon pressure is about 1.6 pounds per square meter at 1 AU. Total force on the earth would be ~2 million pound force. Since the earth weighs 10^21lbs, the acceleration would naff all.</p><p>So, no, an object put at earth's position with a sun that was dead (solid iron is the only option, but even if it were a black hole, the idea is the same) it wouldn't collapse in because there's no decay in the orbit.</p><p>You've watched Disney's "The Black Hole" and thought it was a documentary, I think.</p><p>There's no such theory as one your message proposes someone else to have thought up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The sun wo n't ever go black hole because there 's not enough mass to overcome the electron repulsion between iron atoms.The sun is n't big enough to become a supernova either , since the remains of the star AFTER burning all the fusion products would have to be heavier than the sun is NOW ( and it will lose mass as it reaches red giant stage ) .And since the earth would orbit further away if the sun were lighter but the total energy ( gravitational potential + kinetic ) were the same for the earth , there 's a good chance the earth would spiral out as the sun loses mass into its red giant phase and not get burned inside the sun 's larger atmosphere , even though that would extend beyond the current orbit of the earth.And there 's no such thing as " drag " as you describe it .
Photon pressure is about 1.6 pounds per square meter at 1 AU .
Total force on the earth would be ~ 2 million pound force .
Since the earth weighs 10 ^ 21lbs , the acceleration would naff all.So , no , an object put at earth 's position with a sun that was dead ( solid iron is the only option , but even if it were a black hole , the idea is the same ) it would n't collapse in because there 's no decay in the orbit.You 've watched Disney 's " The Black Hole " and thought it was a documentary , I think.There 's no such theory as one your message proposes someone else to have thought up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sun won't ever go black hole because there's not enough mass to overcome the electron repulsion between iron atoms.The sun isn't big enough to become a supernova either, since the remains of the star AFTER burning all the fusion products would have to be heavier than the sun is NOW (and it will lose mass as it reaches red giant stage).And since the earth would orbit further away if the sun were lighter but the total energy (gravitational potential + kinetic) were the same for the earth, there's a good chance the earth would spiral out as the sun loses mass into its red giant phase and not get burned inside the sun's larger atmosphere, even though that would extend beyond the current orbit of the earth.And there's no such thing as "drag" as you describe it.
Photon pressure is about 1.6 pounds per square meter at 1 AU.
Total force on the earth would be ~2 million pound force.
Since the earth weighs 10^21lbs, the acceleration would naff all.So, no, an object put at earth's position with a sun that was dead (solid iron is the only option, but even if it were a black hole, the idea is the same) it wouldn't collapse in because there's no decay in the orbit.You've watched Disney's "The Black Hole" and thought it was a documentary, I think.There's no such theory as one your message proposes someone else to have thought up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087252</id>
	<title>Covered in Brin's \_Earth\_</title>
	<author>Ken D</author>
	<datestamp>1258130100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The whole planet-eating-micro-black-hole thing was already covered in David Brin's \_Earth\_.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole planet-eating-micro-black-hole thing was already covered in David Brin 's \ _Earth \ _ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole planet-eating-micro-black-hole thing was already covered in David Brin's \_Earth\_.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085822</id>
	<title>Re:Poor MBHs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258122660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>not irony. not even Morissette irony.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>not irony .
not even Morissette irony .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not irony.
not even Morissette irony.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086872</id>
	<title>What about pressure?</title>
	<author>TheMaTrIxBEL</author>
	<datestamp>1258128240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They only talk about the black hole being unable to suck anything in because its mass is to low, but what abbout atmospheric pressure pushing matter into it and growing it like that?

It might be to weak to feed itself but if its forcefed matter deu to pressure in the atmosphere, it should still grow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They only talk about the black hole being unable to suck anything in because its mass is to low , but what abbout atmospheric pressure pushing matter into it and growing it like that ?
It might be to weak to feed itself but if its forcefed matter deu to pressure in the atmosphere , it should still grow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They only talk about the black hole being unable to suck anything in because its mass is to low, but what abbout atmospheric pressure pushing matter into it and growing it like that?
It might be to weak to feed itself but if its forcefed matter deu to pressure in the atmosphere, it should still grow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30090308</id>
	<title>Re:Poor MBHs</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1258143120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So... In micro-black-holes world, universe sucks YOU!?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So... In micro-black-holes world , universe sucks YOU ! ?
: D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So... In micro-black-holes world, universe sucks YOU!?
:D</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086796</id>
	<title>Re:Do they mean a black hole or a singularity?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1258127880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The LHC isn't going to produce anythin the mass of the earth. Google and Wikipedia can enlighten you. Don't you have a computer?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The LHC is n't going to produce anythin the mass of the earth .
Google and Wikipedia can enlighten you .
Do n't you have a computer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The LHC isn't going to produce anythin the mass of the earth.
Google and Wikipedia can enlighten you.
Don't you have a computer?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085796</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30089178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30088020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30089372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30088750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30089918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30090770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30092668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30088750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30092518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30089432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30089946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30096006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30092380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30091102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30093870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30089292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30090550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30090226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30142058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30093428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30089830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30090210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30090388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30093088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30089402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30104668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30092032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30088266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30096626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30090350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30089312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30090308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30089828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_0650229_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_0650229.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30089828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_0650229.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30096626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30089946
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_0650229.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086142
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30090350
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30104668
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087318
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30142058
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087282
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30091102
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30090550
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30092380
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087490
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_0650229.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085756
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086128
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085998
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086164
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086018
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087912
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086508
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_0650229.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30089432
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_0650229.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086408
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_0650229.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086224
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_0650229.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086904
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30090210
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30090770
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30093428
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30089312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30089372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30088020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30089402
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_0650229.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30090308
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_0650229.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30093870
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_0650229.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30092668
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_0650229.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086592
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_0650229.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30089292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086382
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_0650229.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30091542
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_0650229.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086632
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_0650229.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085878
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_0650229.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30088750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30092518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30089918
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_0650229.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30089830
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_0650229.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086028
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_0650229.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086982
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_0650229.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085972
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30090226
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_0650229.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30096006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087456
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_0650229.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30090388
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30093088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30092032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086732
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_0650229.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086188
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_0650229.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30089178
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_0650229.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30087032
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_0650229.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085902
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_0650229.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30085750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30088266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_0650229.30086186
</commentlist>
</conversation>
