<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_24_1955209</id>
	<title>New Theory of Gravity Decouples Space &amp; Time</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1259052900000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>eldavojohn writes <i>"Petr Horava, a physicist at the University of California in Berkeley, has <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=splitting-time-from-space&amp;print=true">a new theory about gravity and spacetime</a>. At high energies, it actually snips any ties between space and time, yet at low energies devolves to equivalence with the theory of General Relativity, which binds them together. The theory is gaining popularity with physicists because it fits some observations better than Einstein's or Newton's solutions. It better predicts the movement of the planets (in an idealized case) and has a potential to create the illusion of dark matter. Another physicist calculated that under Horava Gravity, our universe would experience not a Big Bang but a Big Bounce &mdash; and the new theory reproduces the ripples from such an event in a way that matches measurements of the cosmic microwave background."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>eldavojohn writes " Petr Horava , a physicist at the University of California in Berkeley , has a new theory about gravity and spacetime .
At high energies , it actually snips any ties between space and time , yet at low energies devolves to equivalence with the theory of General Relativity , which binds them together .
The theory is gaining popularity with physicists because it fits some observations better than Einstein 's or Newton 's solutions .
It better predicts the movement of the planets ( in an idealized case ) and has a potential to create the illusion of dark matter .
Another physicist calculated that under Horava Gravity , our universe would experience not a Big Bang but a Big Bounce    and the new theory reproduces the ripples from such an event in a way that matches measurements of the cosmic microwave background .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eldavojohn writes "Petr Horava, a physicist at the University of California in Berkeley, has a new theory about gravity and spacetime.
At high energies, it actually snips any ties between space and time, yet at low energies devolves to equivalence with the theory of General Relativity, which binds them together.
The theory is gaining popularity with physicists because it fits some observations better than Einstein's or Newton's solutions.
It better predicts the movement of the planets (in an idealized case) and has a potential to create the illusion of dark matter.
Another physicist calculated that under Horava Gravity, our universe would experience not a Big Bang but a Big Bounce — and the new theory reproduces the ripples from such an event in a way that matches measurements of the cosmic microwave background.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219500</id>
	<title>Looks like a step in the right direction</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1259060880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Gia Dvali, a quantum gravity expert at CERN, remains cautious. A few years ago he tried a similar trick, breaking apart space and time in an attempt to explain dark energy. But he abandoned his model because it allowed information to be communicated faster than the speed of light.</i> </p><p>How do we know for sure that it's impossible? How can we test against it to conclude it's definitely an impossibility? We surely haven't found any way to achieve that, but given that all theories are still in the balance, how do we know for sure there's no way we possibly could?

</p><p>This being said, nice to see a theory that's more intuitive than usual, that attempts to explain dark matter and dark energy by revising how things work rather than claiming there's a bunch of invisible mysterious things at work, and that does so without adding a bucketload of new unperceptible dimensions and weird vibrating strings that no one can prove. Ah, and give an alternative to the ailing theory of Big Bang.

</p><p>And nice to see that it took SciAm's commenters less time than Slashdot users to make the discussion drift into some crap about religion. Maybe we're not that bad after all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gia Dvali , a quantum gravity expert at CERN , remains cautious .
A few years ago he tried a similar trick , breaking apart space and time in an attempt to explain dark energy .
But he abandoned his model because it allowed information to be communicated faster than the speed of light .
How do we know for sure that it 's impossible ?
How can we test against it to conclude it 's definitely an impossibility ?
We surely have n't found any way to achieve that , but given that all theories are still in the balance , how do we know for sure there 's no way we possibly could ?
This being said , nice to see a theory that 's more intuitive than usual , that attempts to explain dark matter and dark energy by revising how things work rather than claiming there 's a bunch of invisible mysterious things at work , and that does so without adding a bucketload of new unperceptible dimensions and weird vibrating strings that no one can prove .
Ah , and give an alternative to the ailing theory of Big Bang .
And nice to see that it took SciAm 's commenters less time than Slashdot users to make the discussion drift into some crap about religion .
Maybe we 're not that bad after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Gia Dvali, a quantum gravity expert at CERN, remains cautious.
A few years ago he tried a similar trick, breaking apart space and time in an attempt to explain dark energy.
But he abandoned his model because it allowed information to be communicated faster than the speed of light.
How do we know for sure that it's impossible?
How can we test against it to conclude it's definitely an impossibility?
We surely haven't found any way to achieve that, but given that all theories are still in the balance, how do we know for sure there's no way we possibly could?
This being said, nice to see a theory that's more intuitive than usual, that attempts to explain dark matter and dark energy by revising how things work rather than claiming there's a bunch of invisible mysterious things at work, and that does so without adding a bucketload of new unperceptible dimensions and weird vibrating strings that no one can prove.
Ah, and give an alternative to the ailing theory of Big Bang.
And nice to see that it took SciAm's commenters less time than Slashdot users to make the discussion drift into some crap about religion.
Maybe we're not that bad after all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30221072</id>
	<title>Re:Not again</title>
	<author>Prune</author>
	<datestamp>1259068860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The difference is quantitative rather than qualitative, but nonetheless notable: unlike religion, science is in the limit PAC (probably approximately correct).</htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference is quantitative rather than qualitative , but nonetheless notable : unlike religion , science is in the limit PAC ( probably approximately correct ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference is quantitative rather than qualitative, but nonetheless notable: unlike religion, science is in the limit PAC (probably approximately correct).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219600</id>
	<title>Re:And FTL, too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259061420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Without the experimental results, it's meaningless to call such an artifact in the model "good" or "bad".</i></p><p>Try telling that to the army of so-called String Theorists. Their models make no predictions, there are no testing, it's just another religion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Without the experimental results , it 's meaningless to call such an artifact in the model " good " or " bad " .Try telling that to the army of so-called String Theorists .
Their models make no predictions , there are no testing , it 's just another religion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without the experimental results, it's meaningless to call such an artifact in the model "good" or "bad".Try telling that to the army of so-called String Theorists.
Their models make no predictions, there are no testing, it's just another religion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218798</id>
	<title>Re:Not again</title>
	<author>rolfwind</author>
	<datestamp>1259057760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Every few years, there is yet another theory that claims to be better suited for our models than Einstein's. Then they realize they overlooked something and find Einstein's idea fit better than ever.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yeah: <a href="http://yfrog.com/b9sciencevsfaithbigp" title="yfrog.com">http://yfrog.com/b9sciencevsfaithbigp</a> [yfrog.com]</p><p>This sentiment is rather old, I'm sure before and when Einstein came about, people were saying the same thing about Newtonian physics.  Skepticism about new theories are fine, but I'm sure the science will come to a point where we do discover something better than Einstein's formulas in some areas.</p><p>BTW, my physics is really rusty, doesn't one of Einstein's equations devolve into a newtonian equation at slow speed?  Which just shows that things are truly built on top of one another.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every few years , there is yet another theory that claims to be better suited for our models than Einstein 's .
Then they realize they overlooked something and find Einstein 's idea fit better than ever.Yeah : http : //yfrog.com/b9sciencevsfaithbigp [ yfrog.com ] This sentiment is rather old , I 'm sure before and when Einstein came about , people were saying the same thing about Newtonian physics .
Skepticism about new theories are fine , but I 'm sure the science will come to a point where we do discover something better than Einstein 's formulas in some areas.BTW , my physics is really rusty , does n't one of Einstein 's equations devolve into a newtonian equation at slow speed ?
Which just shows that things are truly built on top of one another .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every few years, there is yet another theory that claims to be better suited for our models than Einstein's.
Then they realize they overlooked something and find Einstein's idea fit better than ever.Yeah: http://yfrog.com/b9sciencevsfaithbigp [yfrog.com]This sentiment is rather old, I'm sure before and when Einstein came about, people were saying the same thing about Newtonian physics.
Skepticism about new theories are fine, but I'm sure the science will come to a point where we do discover something better than Einstein's formulas in some areas.BTW, my physics is really rusty, doesn't one of Einstein's equations devolve into a newtonian equation at slow speed?
Which just shows that things are truly built on top of one another.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219524</id>
	<title>Re:String Theory</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1259060940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So does this compete with string theory or have a chance modifying it to an eventual theory of everything?</p></div><p>I don't know, but either way they won't teach it in Kansas if you put it like that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So does this compete with string theory or have a chance modifying it to an eventual theory of everything ? I do n't know , but either way they wo n't teach it in Kansas if you put it like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So does this compete with string theory or have a chance modifying it to an eventual theory of everything?I don't know, but either way they won't teach it in Kansas if you put it like that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218860</id>
	<title>Re:So help me out here.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259057940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does this theory suck or is there some pull to it? It just seems so weighty to me.</p></div><p>You underestimate the gravity of the situation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this theory suck or is there some pull to it ?
It just seems so weighty to me.You underestimate the gravity of the situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this theory suck or is there some pull to it?
It just seems so weighty to me.You underestimate the gravity of the situation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30221784</id>
	<title>Re:Here's the actual article</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1259074140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>PS Slashdot has the slowest comment preview of any website I know.</p></div></blockquote><p>Well, actually it's fast. The problem is, they made it so fast that it got relativistic, and therefore time dilation makes it seem slow.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>PS Slashdot has the slowest comment preview of any website I know.Well , actually it 's fast .
The problem is , they made it so fast that it got relativistic , and therefore time dilation makes it seem slow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PS Slashdot has the slowest comment preview of any website I know.Well, actually it's fast.
The problem is, they made it so fast that it got relativistic, and therefore time dilation makes it seem slow.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219888</id>
	<title>Re:So help me out here.</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1259062740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, that explanation is a bit heavy. Can you take a big breath of hellium and explain it again? Worked for monopoles.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , that explanation is a bit heavy .
Can you take a big breath of hellium and explain it again ?
Worked for monopoles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, that explanation is a bit heavy.
Can you take a big breath of hellium and explain it again?
Worked for monopoles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219534</id>
	<title>Re:Just wondering out loud...</title>
	<author>boristhespider</author>
	<datestamp>1259061000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, that's not actually the starting point of special relativity and it's got really nothing to do with general relativity.</p><p>Special relativity, if you wish to formulate it like that, comes from postulating that the velocity of light as seen from unaccelerated frames of reference is always the same -- this is *not* the same as saying that nothing travels faster than light; that is, instead, a result of this hypothesis.</p><p>General relativity, ultimately, comes from stating that the fact that all objects regardless of mass fall under gravity with the same acceleration isn't an accident. If you think about it, this is an absolutely unnatural situation. Imagine any force -- any actual force. Then the heavier an object is, the less it accelerates for a given force. Simple physics. Gravity doesn't do that. What other force doesn't? Well, centrifugal force. And as people who've never studied anything in rotating reference frames are fond of pointing out, centrifugal force does not exist -- centrifugal force is a fictional force. The hallmark of a fictional force is that it imparts an equal acceleration on all objects. If one assumes that this is due to the fundamental nature of gravity, then by some relatively straightforward reasoning (tied to some not-so-straightforward differential geometry) one is lead to something that resembles general relativity, a "metric" theory of gravity that explains gravity as the manifestation of geometry in some manner.</p><p>(General relativity itself is then found by postulating, based chiefly on the sheer simplicity of it, some equations tying the metric to the distribution of matter, known as the Einstein equations.)</p><p>In general relativity, the fact that nothign can travel faster than light is, firstly, not actually absolutely true due not least to ambiguities in how to define distance and time in arbitrary curved reference frames and, secondly, linked chiefly to the geodesics that particles travel on. A "spacelike" (FTL) geodesic cannot become a timelike (slower than light) geodesic, at least not in a non-pathological spacetime. (I've never seen a spacetime where this could happen, but I'll never say never just in case I'm wrong...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , that 's not actually the starting point of special relativity and it 's got really nothing to do with general relativity.Special relativity , if you wish to formulate it like that , comes from postulating that the velocity of light as seen from unaccelerated frames of reference is always the same -- this is * not * the same as saying that nothing travels faster than light ; that is , instead , a result of this hypothesis.General relativity , ultimately , comes from stating that the fact that all objects regardless of mass fall under gravity with the same acceleration is n't an accident .
If you think about it , this is an absolutely unnatural situation .
Imagine any force -- any actual force .
Then the heavier an object is , the less it accelerates for a given force .
Simple physics .
Gravity does n't do that .
What other force does n't ?
Well , centrifugal force .
And as people who 've never studied anything in rotating reference frames are fond of pointing out , centrifugal force does not exist -- centrifugal force is a fictional force .
The hallmark of a fictional force is that it imparts an equal acceleration on all objects .
If one assumes that this is due to the fundamental nature of gravity , then by some relatively straightforward reasoning ( tied to some not-so-straightforward differential geometry ) one is lead to something that resembles general relativity , a " metric " theory of gravity that explains gravity as the manifestation of geometry in some manner .
( General relativity itself is then found by postulating , based chiefly on the sheer simplicity of it , some equations tying the metric to the distribution of matter , known as the Einstein equations .
) In general relativity , the fact that nothign can travel faster than light is , firstly , not actually absolutely true due not least to ambiguities in how to define distance and time in arbitrary curved reference frames and , secondly , linked chiefly to the geodesics that particles travel on .
A " spacelike " ( FTL ) geodesic can not become a timelike ( slower than light ) geodesic , at least not in a non-pathological spacetime .
( I 've never seen a spacetime where this could happen , but I 'll never say never just in case I 'm wrong... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, that's not actually the starting point of special relativity and it's got really nothing to do with general relativity.Special relativity, if you wish to formulate it like that, comes from postulating that the velocity of light as seen from unaccelerated frames of reference is always the same -- this is *not* the same as saying that nothing travels faster than light; that is, instead, a result of this hypothesis.General relativity, ultimately, comes from stating that the fact that all objects regardless of mass fall under gravity with the same acceleration isn't an accident.
If you think about it, this is an absolutely unnatural situation.
Imagine any force -- any actual force.
Then the heavier an object is, the less it accelerates for a given force.
Simple physics.
Gravity doesn't do that.
What other force doesn't?
Well, centrifugal force.
And as people who've never studied anything in rotating reference frames are fond of pointing out, centrifugal force does not exist -- centrifugal force is a fictional force.
The hallmark of a fictional force is that it imparts an equal acceleration on all objects.
If one assumes that this is due to the fundamental nature of gravity, then by some relatively straightforward reasoning (tied to some not-so-straightforward differential geometry) one is lead to something that resembles general relativity, a "metric" theory of gravity that explains gravity as the manifestation of geometry in some manner.
(General relativity itself is then found by postulating, based chiefly on the sheer simplicity of it, some equations tying the metric to the distribution of matter, known as the Einstein equations.
)In general relativity, the fact that nothign can travel faster than light is, firstly, not actually absolutely true due not least to ambiguities in how to define distance and time in arbitrary curved reference frames and, secondly, linked chiefly to the geodesics that particles travel on.
A "spacelike" (FTL) geodesic cannot become a timelike (slower than light) geodesic, at least not in a non-pathological spacetime.
(I've never seen a spacetime where this could happen, but I'll never say never just in case I'm wrong...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30221000</id>
	<title>Re:Just wondering out loud...</title>
	<author>Prune</author>
	<datestamp>1259068500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see how causality is compatible with block time.  Causality seems to be more of a psychological illusion than anything else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see how causality is compatible with block time .
Causality seems to be more of a psychological illusion than anything else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see how causality is compatible with block time.
Causality seems to be more of a psychological illusion than anything else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218870</id>
	<title>Re:Much more mathematical detail...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259058000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're not a math student it is probably pretty hard to read in any form, not just PDF from PowerDeck. So if you're a code-head like me don't bother.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're not a math student it is probably pretty hard to read in any form , not just PDF from PowerDeck .
So if you 're a code-head like me do n't bother .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're not a math student it is probably pretty hard to read in any form, not just PDF from PowerDeck.
So if you're a code-head like me don't bother.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220474</id>
	<title>Re:Not again</title>
	<author>BlueStraggler</author>
	<datestamp>1259065440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem with faith is when it becomes blind faith.</p></div><p>No, the problem with faith is that it is always blind.  Faith is a strong belief in the absence of evidence, but without evidence, you are utterly and completely blind.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Faith will always be there for the things we do not have the tools to understand.</p></div><p>There are better words for the things we do not have the tools to understand.  "Ignorance" is a pretty good one, for instance.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If you notice, there are "science" folk in here mocking this new theory because it contradicts the old one. Think about this next time you want to take a swing at someone who holds faith.</p></div><p>Criticizing new theories is part of what "science folk" do, you know.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with faith is when it becomes blind faith.No , the problem with faith is that it is always blind .
Faith is a strong belief in the absence of evidence , but without evidence , you are utterly and completely blind.Faith will always be there for the things we do not have the tools to understand.There are better words for the things we do not have the tools to understand .
" Ignorance " is a pretty good one , for instance.If you notice , there are " science " folk in here mocking this new theory because it contradicts the old one .
Think about this next time you want to take a swing at someone who holds faith.Criticizing new theories is part of what " science folk " do , you know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with faith is when it becomes blind faith.No, the problem with faith is that it is always blind.
Faith is a strong belief in the absence of evidence, but without evidence, you are utterly and completely blind.Faith will always be there for the things we do not have the tools to understand.There are better words for the things we do not have the tools to understand.
"Ignorance" is a pretty good one, for instance.If you notice, there are "science" folk in here mocking this new theory because it contradicts the old one.
Think about this next time you want to take a swing at someone who holds faith.Criticizing new theories is part of what "science folk" do, you know.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30231810</id>
	<title>Re:I have a hypothesis about gravity.</title>
	<author>Jherico</author>
	<datestamp>1257165240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your theory is incompatible with orbital mechanics.  The Moon is constantly approaching the Earth because of gravity, but constantly missing because its moving laterally as well.  If the Earth and Moon were both simply getting bigger (instead of exerting forces on one another) then there would be no reason for the Moon to follow a curved path.  It would appear to either recede, approach, or stay equidistant from Earth, but it would not change position in the sky.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your theory is incompatible with orbital mechanics .
The Moon is constantly approaching the Earth because of gravity , but constantly missing because its moving laterally as well .
If the Earth and Moon were both simply getting bigger ( instead of exerting forces on one another ) then there would be no reason for the Moon to follow a curved path .
It would appear to either recede , approach , or stay equidistant from Earth , but it would not change position in the sky .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your theory is incompatible with orbital mechanics.
The Moon is constantly approaching the Earth because of gravity, but constantly missing because its moving laterally as well.
If the Earth and Moon were both simply getting bigger (instead of exerting forces on one another) then there would be no reason for the Moon to follow a curved path.
It would appear to either recede, approach, or stay equidistant from Earth, but it would not change position in the sky.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30227510</id>
	<title>Re:And FTL, too</title>
	<author>Pictish Prince</author>
	<datestamp>1257185160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Causality is not violated in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds\_interpretation" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">the many worlds interpretation</a> [wikipedia.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Causality is not violated in the many worlds interpretation [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Causality is not violated in the many worlds interpretation [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30223498</id>
	<title>Re:some modest hypotheses</title>
	<author>MadMagician</author>
	<datestamp>1257193560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You left out turtles!  all the way down!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You left out turtles !
all the way down !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You left out turtles!
all the way down!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219264</id>
	<title>Re:Not again</title>
	<author>theIsovist</author>
	<datestamp>1259059800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm really going to destroy my karma here, but I think that diagram isn't correct.  I would argue that personal faith is almost identical to the path of the science in the diagram.  There are those of us out there who hold beliefs but aren't afraid that our beliefs might be changed by what evidence we are presented with.  Faith will always be there for the things we do not have the tools to understand.  Whether or not you apply a god to it doesn't matter, because in the end, past what our science is able to tell us, everything comes down to a belief.
<br> <br>
The problem with faith is when it becomes blind faith.  Some people think what they've found is the be all end all and refuse to search anymore.  It's not specific to the religious either.  If you notice, there are "science" folk in here mocking this new theory because it contradicts the old one. Think about this next time you want to take a swing at someone who holds faith.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm really going to destroy my karma here , but I think that diagram is n't correct .
I would argue that personal faith is almost identical to the path of the science in the diagram .
There are those of us out there who hold beliefs but are n't afraid that our beliefs might be changed by what evidence we are presented with .
Faith will always be there for the things we do not have the tools to understand .
Whether or not you apply a god to it does n't matter , because in the end , past what our science is able to tell us , everything comes down to a belief .
The problem with faith is when it becomes blind faith .
Some people think what they 've found is the be all end all and refuse to search anymore .
It 's not specific to the religious either .
If you notice , there are " science " folk in here mocking this new theory because it contradicts the old one .
Think about this next time you want to take a swing at someone who holds faith .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm really going to destroy my karma here, but I think that diagram isn't correct.
I would argue that personal faith is almost identical to the path of the science in the diagram.
There are those of us out there who hold beliefs but aren't afraid that our beliefs might be changed by what evidence we are presented with.
Faith will always be there for the things we do not have the tools to understand.
Whether or not you apply a god to it doesn't matter, because in the end, past what our science is able to tell us, everything comes down to a belief.
The problem with faith is when it becomes blind faith.
Some people think what they've found is the be all end all and refuse to search anymore.
It's not specific to the religious either.
If you notice, there are "science" folk in here mocking this new theory because it contradicts the old one.
Think about this next time you want to take a swing at someone who holds faith.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218894</id>
	<title>Just wondering out loud...</title>
	<author>mmell</author>
	<datestamp>1259058060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Einstein's theories of relativity basically start by saying something to the effect of "Let us assume the speed of light to be the fastest anything can travel.  If we assume this, then..."<p>
Sounds like this guy's saying "Let us assume the speed of light is <i>not necessarily</i> the fastest anything can travel.  If we assume this, then..."</p><p>
The reason for Einstein's initial assumption is that we have never to date observed anything which has moved faster than light.  Then again, would we know such a thing if we observed it, and have we actively looked for such a thing?  If so, how have we looked?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Einstein 's theories of relativity basically start by saying something to the effect of " Let us assume the speed of light to be the fastest anything can travel .
If we assume this , then... " Sounds like this guy 's saying " Let us assume the speed of light is not necessarily the fastest anything can travel .
If we assume this , then... " The reason for Einstein 's initial assumption is that we have never to date observed anything which has moved faster than light .
Then again , would we know such a thing if we observed it , and have we actively looked for such a thing ?
If so , how have we looked ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Einstein's theories of relativity basically start by saying something to the effect of "Let us assume the speed of light to be the fastest anything can travel.
If we assume this, then..."
Sounds like this guy's saying "Let us assume the speed of light is not necessarily the fastest anything can travel.
If we assume this, then..."
The reason for Einstein's initial assumption is that we have never to date observed anything which has moved faster than light.
Then again, would we know such a thing if we observed it, and have we actively looked for such a thing?
If so, how have we looked?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219620</id>
	<title>Re:Not again</title>
	<author>Doc Ruby</author>
	<datestamp>1259061540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The difference between science and faith is whether the statement could possibly be disproved. If it can, it's science. If it can't, it's faith.</p><p>That's a tiny difference in length of description. But the difference between what can be disproved and what can't is a very big difference. While faith statements could be the most important <i>if true</i>, like a diety, afterlife, consequences of pure morals, without proof or disproof those statements are the most unreliable to be true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference between science and faith is whether the statement could possibly be disproved .
If it can , it 's science .
If it ca n't , it 's faith.That 's a tiny difference in length of description .
But the difference between what can be disproved and what ca n't is a very big difference .
While faith statements could be the most important if true , like a diety , afterlife , consequences of pure morals , without proof or disproof those statements are the most unreliable to be true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference between science and faith is whether the statement could possibly be disproved.
If it can, it's science.
If it can't, it's faith.That's a tiny difference in length of description.
But the difference between what can be disproved and what can't is a very big difference.
While faith statements could be the most important if true, like a diety, afterlife, consequences of pure morals, without proof or disproof those statements are the most unreliable to be true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30222766</id>
	<title>Re:And FTL, too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259083440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FTL communication of information has been checked for extensively, and has never been found to exist. That was one of the most compelling pieces of evidence in support of Special Relativity. Furthermore, a theory that seeks to supplant General Relativity must first explain all of its results as special cases and then propose the more general solution that can then be verified experimentally.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FTL communication of information has been checked for extensively , and has never been found to exist .
That was one of the most compelling pieces of evidence in support of Special Relativity .
Furthermore , a theory that seeks to supplant General Relativity must first explain all of its results as special cases and then propose the more general solution that can then be verified experimentally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTL communication of information has been checked for extensively, and has never been found to exist.
That was one of the most compelling pieces of evidence in support of Special Relativity.
Furthermore, a theory that seeks to supplant General Relativity must first explain all of its results as special cases and then propose the more general solution that can then be verified experimentally.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219354</id>
	<title>Re:Theory or Hypothesis?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259060160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is the amount of evidence really the defining difference between a theory and a hypothesis? My formal scientific education ended back in high school, so maybe I'm wrong here, but I thought a hypothesis was more of a prediction about the results of a specific experiment or observation, while a theory was a proposed set of rules that worked in a more general sense.</p><p>A simple theory of gravity might be "all matter attracts each other", while a related hypothesis could be "If I release this this rock off the edge of a building, the mass of the earth will attract the mass of the rock and the rock will fall."</p><p>Language is a tough thing to pin down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the amount of evidence really the defining difference between a theory and a hypothesis ?
My formal scientific education ended back in high school , so maybe I 'm wrong here , but I thought a hypothesis was more of a prediction about the results of a specific experiment or observation , while a theory was a proposed set of rules that worked in a more general sense.A simple theory of gravity might be " all matter attracts each other " , while a related hypothesis could be " If I release this this rock off the edge of a building , the mass of the earth will attract the mass of the rock and the rock will fall .
" Language is a tough thing to pin down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the amount of evidence really the defining difference between a theory and a hypothesis?
My formal scientific education ended back in high school, so maybe I'm wrong here, but I thought a hypothesis was more of a prediction about the results of a specific experiment or observation, while a theory was a proposed set of rules that worked in a more general sense.A simple theory of gravity might be "all matter attracts each other", while a related hypothesis could be "If I release this this rock off the edge of a building, the mass of the earth will attract the mass of the rock and the rock will fall.
"Language is a tough thing to pin down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219010</id>
	<title>Practical Application</title>
	<author>rcolbert</author>
	<datestamp>1259058600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Einstein's theory led to the atomic bomb.  The most tangible output from any subsequent theory is "Stargate:Atlantis" at best.  I doubt we'll have a satisfactory understanding of space, time, or gravity in my lifetime, and I'm not closing in on social security anytime soon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Einstein 's theory led to the atomic bomb .
The most tangible output from any subsequent theory is " Stargate : Atlantis " at best .
I doubt we 'll have a satisfactory understanding of space , time , or gravity in my lifetime , and I 'm not closing in on social security anytime soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Einstein's theory led to the atomic bomb.
The most tangible output from any subsequent theory is "Stargate:Atlantis" at best.
I doubt we'll have a satisfactory understanding of space, time, or gravity in my lifetime, and I'm not closing in on social security anytime soon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218664</id>
	<title>Re:And FTL, too</title>
	<author>happy\_place</author>
	<datestamp>1259057220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Communicating faster than the speed of light? Isn't that straight out of Science Fiction? The Ansible in Ender's Game/Speaker for the Dead/Xenocide fame... Sweeeet... can't wait to meet a bugger.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Communicating faster than the speed of light ?
Is n't that straight out of Science Fiction ?
The Ansible in Ender 's Game/Speaker for the Dead/Xenocide fame... Sweeeet... ca n't wait to meet a bugger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Communicating faster than the speed of light?
Isn't that straight out of Science Fiction?
The Ansible in Ender's Game/Speaker for the Dead/Xenocide fame... Sweeeet... can't wait to meet a bugger.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220188</id>
	<title>Re:Spooky action at a distance?</title>
	<author>jpmorgan</author>
	<datestamp>1259064060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spooky action at a distance doesn't need any finagling to get around lightspeed, because spooky action at a distance doesn't involve any communication. It's already compatible with general relativity (at least, insofar as any quantum theory is compatible with relativity).</p><p>A flawed, but illustrative example that should explain why this is so: imagine you have a friend who is flipping a coin... if it comes up heads, he writes an X on two sheets of paper, if it comes up tails, he writes a checkmark on both instead. Both are immediately sealed inside envelopes and mailed to opposites sides of the planet. If you open one letter and see an X, you instantly know the other has an X also. That doesn't require any communication.</p><p>A slightly less flawed, and still illustrative extension: Now instead of a coin flip, you have a machine do it based on the decay of a mass of cesium, and you have a perfect envelope which protects against quantum decoherence. The same situation applies, as soon as you open one envelope you know what is contained in the other. The only difference this time is that the letters were entangled and in a superposition of states. However, it's the same mechanism, and no communication is required.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spooky action at a distance does n't need any finagling to get around lightspeed , because spooky action at a distance does n't involve any communication .
It 's already compatible with general relativity ( at least , insofar as any quantum theory is compatible with relativity ) .A flawed , but illustrative example that should explain why this is so : imagine you have a friend who is flipping a coin... if it comes up heads , he writes an X on two sheets of paper , if it comes up tails , he writes a checkmark on both instead .
Both are immediately sealed inside envelopes and mailed to opposites sides of the planet .
If you open one letter and see an X , you instantly know the other has an X also .
That does n't require any communication.A slightly less flawed , and still illustrative extension : Now instead of a coin flip , you have a machine do it based on the decay of a mass of cesium , and you have a perfect envelope which protects against quantum decoherence .
The same situation applies , as soon as you open one envelope you know what is contained in the other .
The only difference this time is that the letters were entangled and in a superposition of states .
However , it 's the same mechanism , and no communication is required .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spooky action at a distance doesn't need any finagling to get around lightspeed, because spooky action at a distance doesn't involve any communication.
It's already compatible with general relativity (at least, insofar as any quantum theory is compatible with relativity).A flawed, but illustrative example that should explain why this is so: imagine you have a friend who is flipping a coin... if it comes up heads, he writes an X on two sheets of paper, if it comes up tails, he writes a checkmark on both instead.
Both are immediately sealed inside envelopes and mailed to opposites sides of the planet.
If you open one letter and see an X, you instantly know the other has an X also.
That doesn't require any communication.A slightly less flawed, and still illustrative extension: Now instead of a coin flip, you have a machine do it based on the decay of a mass of cesium, and you have a perfect envelope which protects against quantum decoherence.
The same situation applies, as soon as you open one envelope you know what is contained in the other.
The only difference this time is that the letters were entangled and in a superposition of states.
However, it's the same mechanism, and no communication is required.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30222600</id>
	<title>Re:some modest hypotheses</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1259081520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; I don't think time, as in "time lines" or some kind of unidirectional<br>&gt; movement through a medium exists.</p><p>Neither does anyone who actually knows anything about physics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I do n't think time , as in " time lines " or some kind of unidirectional &gt; movement through a medium exists.Neither does anyone who actually knows anything about physics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; I don't think time, as in "time lines" or some kind of unidirectional&gt; movement through a medium exists.Neither does anyone who actually knows anything about physics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219110</id>
	<title>Re:And FTL, too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259059080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's what I've always wondered about that. How does traveling faster than light let something return to a certain point in space before it left that point? And if you can't return to a point in space before you left it, you can't violate causality, right? Let's say a star blows up 30 light years away and an alien spaceship flies faster than light to warn us about it. I don't see how it violates causality to tell us about the explosion before we could conventionally learn about it. We still can't travel back to the star and somehow stop it from exploding. When we got there, it would still have already happened.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's what I 've always wondered about that .
How does traveling faster than light let something return to a certain point in space before it left that point ?
And if you ca n't return to a point in space before you left it , you ca n't violate causality , right ?
Let 's say a star blows up 30 light years away and an alien spaceship flies faster than light to warn us about it .
I do n't see how it violates causality to tell us about the explosion before we could conventionally learn about it .
We still ca n't travel back to the star and somehow stop it from exploding .
When we got there , it would still have already happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's what I've always wondered about that.
How does traveling faster than light let something return to a certain point in space before it left that point?
And if you can't return to a point in space before you left it, you can't violate causality, right?
Let's say a star blows up 30 light years away and an alien spaceship flies faster than light to warn us about it.
I don't see how it violates causality to tell us about the explosion before we could conventionally learn about it.
We still can't travel back to the star and somehow stop it from exploding.
When we got there, it would still have already happened.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30223040</id>
	<title>Re:Oh no...</title>
	<author>FatdogHaiku</author>
	<datestamp>1259086980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You mean the space-time continuum doesn't exist? Star Trek is wrong?</p></div><p>Oh, it's there as long as you just look at it. It's when higher energies are involved that things might get a bit wobbly... and even that might let us turn things inside out, or maybe do some other interesting tricks.<br> As long as it doesn't turn out that we are in the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GDC3u8k02c" title="youtube.com">Simpson's Universe</a> [youtube.com] I'm OK with it all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean the space-time continuum does n't exist ?
Star Trek is wrong ? Oh , it 's there as long as you just look at it .
It 's when higher energies are involved that things might get a bit wobbly... and even that might let us turn things inside out , or maybe do some other interesting tricks .
As long as it does n't turn out that we are in the Simpson 's Universe [ youtube.com ] I 'm OK with it all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean the space-time continuum doesn't exist?
Star Trek is wrong?Oh, it's there as long as you just look at it.
It's when higher energies are involved that things might get a bit wobbly... and even that might let us turn things inside out, or maybe do some other interesting tricks.
As long as it doesn't turn out that we are in the Simpson's Universe [youtube.com] I'm OK with it all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219408</id>
	<title>Re:Ow!</title>
	<author>LandDolphin</author>
	<datestamp>1259060460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Ow! My brain hurts</p></div><p>
Does that come on before or after "Ow! My Balls"?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ow !
My brain hurts Does that come on before or after " Ow !
My Balls " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Ow!
My brain hurts
Does that come on before or after "Ow!
My Balls"?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219068</id>
	<title>Facebook relationship status</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259058840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So that's why Gravity's facebook relationship status switched to available.  I bet the SNF totally makes a play.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So that 's why Gravity 's facebook relationship status switched to available .
I bet the SNF totally makes a play .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So that's why Gravity's facebook relationship status switched to available.
I bet the SNF totally makes a play.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219984</id>
	<title>I've got it.</title>
	<author>AttillaTheNun</author>
	<datestamp>1259063220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm a promoter of the Big Ooze theory, myself. Sort of like leakage from an omnipotent being's a$$</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a promoter of the Big Ooze theory , myself .
Sort of like leakage from an omnipotent being 's a $ $</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a promoter of the Big Ooze theory, myself.
Sort of like leakage from an omnipotent being's a$$</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30221164</id>
	<title>Re:Practical Application</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1259069460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Einstein's theory led to the atomic bomb.</p><p>Wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Einstein 's theory led to the atomic bomb.Wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Einstein's theory led to the atomic bomb.Wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220376</id>
	<title>Re:I have a hypothesis about gravity.</title>
	<author>acheron12</author>
	<datestamp>1259064960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Also, it would imply that the strength of an object's gravitational pull depends only on its size, not its mass.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , it would imply that the strength of an object 's gravitational pull depends only on its size , not its mass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, it would imply that the strength of an object's gravitational pull depends only on its size, not its mass.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30221512</id>
	<title>Re:Just wondering out loud...</title>
	<author>cinnamon colbert</author>
	<datestamp>1259071860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am told that space is expanding - the distance between galaxies is growing.<br>But why isn't the distance between planets, or the distance between air molecules on earth growing at the same rate ?<br>I once did a order of magnitude calculation that the hubble constant X a few kilometers X a year equals a measurable (on, say LIGO scale) change...</p><p>thankts</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am told that space is expanding - the distance between galaxies is growing.But why is n't the distance between planets , or the distance between air molecules on earth growing at the same rate ? I once did a order of magnitude calculation that the hubble constant X a few kilometers X a year equals a measurable ( on , say LIGO scale ) change...thankts</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am told that space is expanding - the distance between galaxies is growing.But why isn't the distance between planets, or the distance between air molecules on earth growing at the same rate ?I once did a order of magnitude calculation that the hubble constant X a few kilometers X a year equals a measurable (on, say LIGO scale) change...thankts</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219248</id>
	<title>Spooky action at a distance?</title>
	<author>fahrbot-bot</author>
	<datestamp>1259059740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Gia Dvali, a quantum gravity expert at CERN, remains cautious. A few years ago he tried a similar trick, breaking apart space and time in an attempt to explain dark energy. But he abandoned his model because it allowed information to be communicated faster than the speed of light.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Might this new theory explain how the speed of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum\_entanglement#Experiment\_measures\_.22speed.22\_of\_the\_quantum\_non-local\_connection" title="wikipedia.org">spooky action at a distance</a> [wikipedia.org] is possible (below)?</p><blockquote><div><p>A 2008 quantum physics experiment performed in Geneva, Switzerland has determined that the "speed" of the quantum non-local connection (what Einstein called spooky action at a distance) has a minimum lower bound of 10,000 times the speed of light.</p></div>
</blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gia Dvali , a quantum gravity expert at CERN , remains cautious .
A few years ago he tried a similar trick , breaking apart space and time in an attempt to explain dark energy .
But he abandoned his model because it allowed information to be communicated faster than the speed of light .
Might this new theory explain how the speed of spooky action at a distance [ wikipedia.org ] is possible ( below ) ? A 2008 quantum physics experiment performed in Geneva , Switzerland has determined that the " speed " of the quantum non-local connection ( what Einstein called spooky action at a distance ) has a minimum lower bound of 10,000 times the speed of light .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gia Dvali, a quantum gravity expert at CERN, remains cautious.
A few years ago he tried a similar trick, breaking apart space and time in an attempt to explain dark energy.
But he abandoned his model because it allowed information to be communicated faster than the speed of light.
Might this new theory explain how the speed of spooky action at a distance [wikipedia.org] is possible (below)?A 2008 quantum physics experiment performed in Geneva, Switzerland has determined that the "speed" of the quantum non-local connection (what Einstein called spooky action at a distance) has a minimum lower bound of 10,000 times the speed of light.

	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218694</id>
	<title>String Theory</title>
	<author>Statecraftsman</author>
	<datestamp>1259057340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>So does this compete with string theory or have a chance modifying it to an eventual theory of everything?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So does this compete with string theory or have a chance modifying it to an eventual theory of everything ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So does this compete with string theory or have a chance modifying it to an eventual theory of everything?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30221252</id>
	<title>Re:And FTL, too</title>
	<author>joe\_frisch</author>
	<datestamp>1259069940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm all in favour of experimental results, but FTL information transmission (on macroscopic scales) has such widespread implications for physics that it is mostly likely a sign the theory is wrong. There are a lot of experiments that indicate that the macroscopic structure of space-time matches special relativity. In that system if you have FTL information, you can send information back in time (by choosing a moving frame). That destroys causality, and a lot of the underpinnings of physics.</p><p>I'm not saying it is impossible - but it would require tremendous re-write of all known physics. For scientists to consider this, there would need to be a clear practical experiment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm all in favour of experimental results , but FTL information transmission ( on macroscopic scales ) has such widespread implications for physics that it is mostly likely a sign the theory is wrong .
There are a lot of experiments that indicate that the macroscopic structure of space-time matches special relativity .
In that system if you have FTL information , you can send information back in time ( by choosing a moving frame ) .
That destroys causality , and a lot of the underpinnings of physics.I 'm not saying it is impossible - but it would require tremendous re-write of all known physics .
For scientists to consider this , there would need to be a clear practical experiment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm all in favour of experimental results, but FTL information transmission (on macroscopic scales) has such widespread implications for physics that it is mostly likely a sign the theory is wrong.
There are a lot of experiments that indicate that the macroscopic structure of space-time matches special relativity.
In that system if you have FTL information, you can send information back in time (by choosing a moving frame).
That destroys causality, and a lot of the underpinnings of physics.I'm not saying it is impossible - but it would require tremendous re-write of all known physics.
For scientists to consider this, there would need to be a clear practical experiment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30222734</id>
	<title>Re:ZZZTTT !</title>
	<author>Americium</author>
	<datestamp>1259083080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But our universe is very close to flat, it's only slightly open. Wouldn't it be essentially flat at high enough energies/early enough times.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But our universe is very close to flat , it 's only slightly open .
Would n't it be essentially flat at high enough energies/early enough times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But our universe is very close to flat, it's only slightly open.
Wouldn't it be essentially flat at high enough energies/early enough times.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218816</id>
	<title>Re:And FTL, too</title>
	<author>mbone</author>
	<datestamp>1259057880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember, faster than light means time travel (&amp;, thus, causality violations), so I can understand caution. But, I bet in reality his theory had more serious problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember , faster than light means time travel ( &amp; , thus , causality violations ) , so I can understand caution .
But , I bet in reality his theory had more serious problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember, faster than light means time travel (&amp;, thus, causality violations), so I can understand caution.
But, I bet in reality his theory had more serious problems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30222088</id>
	<title>Re:And FTL, too</title>
	<author>Xacid</author>
	<datestamp>1259076720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which makes a hell of a lot more sense to me. Empirically-speaking I can't fathom alternate worlds where people are doing the exact same thing 10 minutes ago - then again, perhaps that's not what time travel is in terms of the scientific community. If this theory can hold true for things we already know and expand on what we don't know for sure yet then I'm all ears for this. While I love what Einstein's work was able to accomplish - I can't say it's 100\%. As I believe Newton said "If I have seen the heavens it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants" - and by this I mean let's not discredit Einstein's work either. We use past science to bring us into future science.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which makes a hell of a lot more sense to me .
Empirically-speaking I ca n't fathom alternate worlds where people are doing the exact same thing 10 minutes ago - then again , perhaps that 's not what time travel is in terms of the scientific community .
If this theory can hold true for things we already know and expand on what we do n't know for sure yet then I 'm all ears for this .
While I love what Einstein 's work was able to accomplish - I ca n't say it 's 100 \ % .
As I believe Newton said " If I have seen the heavens it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants " - and by this I mean let 's not discredit Einstein 's work either .
We use past science to bring us into future science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which makes a hell of a lot more sense to me.
Empirically-speaking I can't fathom alternate worlds where people are doing the exact same thing 10 minutes ago - then again, perhaps that's not what time travel is in terms of the scientific community.
If this theory can hold true for things we already know and expand on what we don't know for sure yet then I'm all ears for this.
While I love what Einstein's work was able to accomplish - I can't say it's 100\%.
As I believe Newton said "If I have seen the heavens it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants" - and by this I mean let's not discredit Einstein's work either.
We use past science to bring us into future science.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30222812</id>
	<title>Re:Ow!</title>
	<author>Americium</author>
	<datestamp>1259083860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now you're telling me that they might also be decoupled in special circumstances.</p></div><p>Time and Space are almost meaningless at those high energies, the times are incredibly small, and the distances are also incredibly small.
</p><p>
Why do you think they built CERN. The laws of physics break down at high energies. The 'god particle', the Higg's boson, is the particle that transfers the gravitational force (yet their is not a quantum field theory for gravity that is accepted yet). Every other force has a force carrier particle. EM has the photon, weak has the W boson, strong has the other boson(forget the name), and gravity is assumed to also have a particle that transfers the force (Fermi lab might have seen it already). Of course we never see the particle, just as we never see photons (they are virtual photons) when electrons are repelling each other. We only see photons when we accelerate electrons. We only saw the W boson when we smashed protons together. Let's keep smashing things together until we see the Higg's boson.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now you 're telling me that they might also be decoupled in special circumstances.Time and Space are almost meaningless at those high energies , the times are incredibly small , and the distances are also incredibly small .
Why do you think they built CERN .
The laws of physics break down at high energies .
The 'god particle ' , the Higg 's boson , is the particle that transfers the gravitational force ( yet their is not a quantum field theory for gravity that is accepted yet ) .
Every other force has a force carrier particle .
EM has the photon , weak has the W boson , strong has the other boson ( forget the name ) , and gravity is assumed to also have a particle that transfers the force ( Fermi lab might have seen it already ) .
Of course we never see the particle , just as we never see photons ( they are virtual photons ) when electrons are repelling each other .
We only see photons when we accelerate electrons .
We only saw the W boson when we smashed protons together .
Let 's keep smashing things together until we see the Higg 's boson .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now you're telling me that they might also be decoupled in special circumstances.Time and Space are almost meaningless at those high energies, the times are incredibly small, and the distances are also incredibly small.
Why do you think they built CERN.
The laws of physics break down at high energies.
The 'god particle', the Higg's boson, is the particle that transfers the gravitational force (yet their is not a quantum field theory for gravity that is accepted yet).
Every other force has a force carrier particle.
EM has the photon, weak has the W boson, strong has the other boson(forget the name), and gravity is assumed to also have a particle that transfers the force (Fermi lab might have seen it already).
Of course we never see the particle, just as we never see photons (they are virtual photons) when electrons are repelling each other.
We only see photons when we accelerate electrons.
We only saw the W boson when we smashed protons together.
Let's keep smashing things together until we see the Higg's boson.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218770</id>
	<title>Re:And FTL, too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259057700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whether it's a feature or a bug depends on whether it reflects reality.</p><p>It's strange to me that Dvali would abandon his model for allowing FTL propagation of information <i>unless he experimentally checked the conditions in question to see if information really could propagate FTL in those cases</i>.  I have to assume he did not - lacking clarification on the matter I'm left to assume that the conditions were not something simple he could test no a whim.</p><p>Without the experimental results, it's meaningless to call such an artifact in the model "good" or "bad".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whether it 's a feature or a bug depends on whether it reflects reality.It 's strange to me that Dvali would abandon his model for allowing FTL propagation of information unless he experimentally checked the conditions in question to see if information really could propagate FTL in those cases .
I have to assume he did not - lacking clarification on the matter I 'm left to assume that the conditions were not something simple he could test no a whim.Without the experimental results , it 's meaningless to call such an artifact in the model " good " or " bad " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whether it's a feature or a bug depends on whether it reflects reality.It's strange to me that Dvali would abandon his model for allowing FTL propagation of information unless he experimentally checked the conditions in question to see if information really could propagate FTL in those cases.
I have to assume he did not - lacking clarification on the matter I'm left to assume that the conditions were not something simple he could test no a whim.Without the experimental results, it's meaningless to call such an artifact in the model "good" or "bad".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219726</id>
	<title>Re:Theory or Hypothesis?</title>
	<author>Xoltri</author>
	<datestamp>1259061900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If scientists, science fans, and science writers do not use the words correctly how are we to defend the difference when creationists come around misusing the words?</p></div><p>Who cares?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If scientists , science fans , and science writers do not use the words correctly how are we to defend the difference when creationists come around misusing the words ? Who cares ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If scientists, science fans, and science writers do not use the words correctly how are we to defend the difference when creationists come around misusing the words?Who cares?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219026</id>
	<title>Apparent contradiction</title>
	<author>perrin</author>
	<datestamp>1259058720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the linked article, it seems the theory both predicts the heat death of the universe (continued accelerated expansion) and that our universe started from a "Big Crunch" scenario (gravity had pulled everything back again). This seems quite strange (although of course nature can be quite strange at times). Anyone know this theory any better and can provide some enlightenment?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the linked article , it seems the theory both predicts the heat death of the universe ( continued accelerated expansion ) and that our universe started from a " Big Crunch " scenario ( gravity had pulled everything back again ) .
This seems quite strange ( although of course nature can be quite strange at times ) .
Anyone know this theory any better and can provide some enlightenment ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the linked article, it seems the theory both predicts the heat death of the universe (continued accelerated expansion) and that our universe started from a "Big Crunch" scenario (gravity had pulled everything back again).
This seems quite strange (although of course nature can be quite strange at times).
Anyone know this theory any better and can provide some enlightenment?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30221794</id>
	<title>Re:And FTL, too</title>
	<author>Roger W Moore</author>
	<datestamp>1259074200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Remember, faster than light means time travel (&amp;, thus, causality violations), so I can understand caution.</p></div><p>
This only holds under relativity. If relativity is not correct then its results are also no longer neccessarily true. However it is true to say that we have never observed any phenomenon which can transmit information faster than light so any new theory will have to explain this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember , faster than light means time travel ( &amp; , thus , causality violations ) , so I can understand caution .
This only holds under relativity .
If relativity is not correct then its results are also no longer neccessarily true .
However it is true to say that we have never observed any phenomenon which can transmit information faster than light so any new theory will have to explain this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember, faster than light means time travel (&amp;, thus, causality violations), so I can understand caution.
This only holds under relativity.
If relativity is not correct then its results are also no longer neccessarily true.
However it is true to say that we have never observed any phenomenon which can transmit information faster than light so any new theory will have to explain this.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30231212</id>
	<title>Re:Spooky action at a distance?</title>
	<author>BobGod8</author>
	<datestamp>1257160980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No it does require communication.  The person/machine/thing in the middle is communicating the results, using the mail.  The problem with quantum coherence (big/giant/gaping hole that Einstein attempted to fill for 40 years) is that there don't appear to be ANY hidden variables, i.e. nothing communicating the results to the other end of the entanglement.  This is not to say that we're violating any laws, but that your example is precisely the hidden variables solution that was disproved numerous times.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No it does require communication .
The person/machine/thing in the middle is communicating the results , using the mail .
The problem with quantum coherence ( big/giant/gaping hole that Einstein attempted to fill for 40 years ) is that there do n't appear to be ANY hidden variables , i.e .
nothing communicating the results to the other end of the entanglement .
This is not to say that we 're violating any laws , but that your example is precisely the hidden variables solution that was disproved numerous times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No it does require communication.
The person/machine/thing in the middle is communicating the results, using the mail.
The problem with quantum coherence (big/giant/gaping hole that Einstein attempted to fill for 40 years) is that there don't appear to be ANY hidden variables, i.e.
nothing communicating the results to the other end of the entanglement.
This is not to say that we're violating any laws, but that your example is precisely the hidden variables solution that was disproved numerous times.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220470</id>
	<title>Re:Just wondering out loud...</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1259065440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If massive particles cannot be accelerated to c, if massless particles must travel at c, shouldn't negative mass particles have to travel FTL?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)

</p><p>What really bothers me about the no FTL thing isn't that no massive particle can be accelerated to c, let alone beyond it, as it's fairly intuitive, but that there should be no way in hell that we could transmit information in any way faster than light. It just doesn't seem very clearly established that such a thing would be categorically impossible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If massive particles can not be accelerated to c , if massless particles must travel at c , should n't negative mass particles have to travel FTL ?
; - ) What really bothers me about the no FTL thing is n't that no massive particle can be accelerated to c , let alone beyond it , as it 's fairly intuitive , but that there should be no way in hell that we could transmit information in any way faster than light .
It just does n't seem very clearly established that such a thing would be categorically impossible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If massive particles cannot be accelerated to c, if massless particles must travel at c, shouldn't negative mass particles have to travel FTL?
;-)

What really bothers me about the no FTL thing isn't that no massive particle can be accelerated to c, let alone beyond it, as it's fairly intuitive, but that there should be no way in hell that we could transmit information in any way faster than light.
It just doesn't seem very clearly established that such a thing would be categorically impossible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219812</id>
	<title>Re:And FTL, too</title>
	<author>markov\_chain</author>
	<datestamp>1259062380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Whether it's a feature or a bug depends on whether it reflects reality.</p></div><p>Clearly with FTL travel it cannot reflect reality, so it must be false.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whether it 's a feature or a bug depends on whether it reflects reality.Clearly with FTL travel it can not reflect reality , so it must be false .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whether it's a feature or a bug depends on whether it reflects reality.Clearly with FTL travel it cannot reflect reality, so it must be false.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219344</id>
	<title>Re:And FTL, too</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1259060160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not that simple.  The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality\_(physics)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">causality principle</a> [wikipedia.org] is an assumption made by lots of other theories.  While it has never been proven, it is assumed by so many things that any theory that breaks it will likely break a whole lot of other things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not that simple .
The causality principle [ wikipedia.org ] is an assumption made by lots of other theories .
While it has never been proven , it is assumed by so many things that any theory that breaks it will likely break a whole lot of other things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not that simple.
The causality principle [wikipedia.org] is an assumption made by lots of other theories.
While it has never been proven, it is assumed by so many things that any theory that breaks it will likely break a whole lot of other things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219630</id>
	<title>This based on hidden stuff at area 51 and other pl</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1259061540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This based on hidden stuff at area 51 and other places and is just another step be they tell us the ful...................</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This based on hidden stuff at area 51 and other places and is just another step be they tell us the ful.................. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This based on hidden stuff at area 51 and other places and is just another step be they tell us the ful...................</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220494</id>
	<title>Re:I have a hypothesis about gravity.</title>
	<author>DriedClexler</author>
	<datestamp>1259065500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Scott Adams called.  He wants his amateurish attempts at outsmarting scientists back.</p><p>He's also curious about your ability to recognize when your theory is flat-out wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Scott Adams called .
He wants his amateurish attempts at outsmarting scientists back.He 's also curious about your ability to recognize when your theory is flat-out wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scott Adams called.
He wants his amateurish attempts at outsmarting scientists back.He's also curious about your ability to recognize when your theory is flat-out wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30225352</id>
	<title>Re:some modest hypotheses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257173820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1: Well yeah, that's what is so cool.</p><p>2: Hypo-what?</p><p>3: Um, no. Wrong.</p><p>4: You're high, aren't you?</p><p>5: Oh gods, not that electric universe pseudoscience.  It's Not Even Wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 : Well yeah , that 's what is so cool.2 : Hypo-what ? 3 : Um , no .
Wrong.4 : You 're high , are n't you ? 5 : Oh gods , not that electric universe pseudoscience .
It 's Not Even Wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1: Well yeah, that's what is so cool.2: Hypo-what?3: Um, no.
Wrong.4: You're high, aren't you?5: Oh gods, not that electric universe pseudoscience.
It's Not Even Wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220480</id>
	<title>Matching previous observations counts too</title>
	<author>snowwrestler</author>
	<datestamp>1259065440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it matches previously observed phenomena, which the summary says it does, then it is supported by those observations and can be considered a theory. To replace existing theory it would also need to produce new hypotheses and answer them better than existing theory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it matches previously observed phenomena , which the summary says it does , then it is supported by those observations and can be considered a theory .
To replace existing theory it would also need to produce new hypotheses and answer them better than existing theory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it matches previously observed phenomena, which the summary says it does, then it is supported by those observations and can be considered a theory.
To replace existing theory it would also need to produce new hypotheses and answer them better than existing theory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220410</id>
	<title>Yeah!</title>
	<author>BitHive</author>
	<datestamp>1259065080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because determining whether a program will ever stop doesn't fit the model as we can understand it doesn't mean that it doesn't or cannot occur. We should stop dismissing ideas of computer science simply because they don't fit with what we believe should happen. It is entirely plausible that you can solve the halting problem but cannot mathematically explain how - but because we cannot fully explain how it should not be dismissed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because determining whether a program will ever stop does n't fit the model as we can understand it does n't mean that it does n't or can not occur .
We should stop dismissing ideas of computer science simply because they do n't fit with what we believe should happen .
It is entirely plausible that you can solve the halting problem but can not mathematically explain how - but because we can not fully explain how it should not be dismissed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because determining whether a program will ever stop doesn't fit the model as we can understand it doesn't mean that it doesn't or cannot occur.
We should stop dismissing ideas of computer science simply because they don't fit with what we believe should happen.
It is entirely plausible that you can solve the halting problem but cannot mathematically explain how - but because we cannot fully explain how it should not be dismissed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219272</id>
	<title>Ho\v{r}rava, not Horava - fix your spelling!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259059860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's Horava (r with "v" above), not Horava! Fix the spelling and your unicode "support" (rendering me unable to even report the error properly)! It will soon be 2010, wake up!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's Horava ( r with " v " above ) , not Horava !
Fix the spelling and your unicode " support " ( rendering me unable to even report the error properly ) !
It will soon be 2010 , wake up !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's Horava (r with "v" above), not Horava!
Fix the spelling and your unicode "support" (rendering me unable to even report the error properly)!
It will soon be 2010, wake up!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218844</id>
	<title>some modest hypotheses</title>
	<author>czarangelus</author>
	<datestamp>1259057940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>1. Gravity is <b>still</b> spooky action at a distance with no causal mechanism defined.<br> <br>
2. I don't think time, as in "time lines" or some kind of unidirectional movement through a medium exists. <b>Now</b> exists, hypostatized out of a past (which stops existing when it stops being now) and which in turn hypostatizes the future (which does not exist.)<br> <br>
3. Electromagnetism is the dominant force in the heavens as it is on Earth.<br> <br>
4. Stars are organisms and they reproduce through fission.<br> <br>
5. Galaxies are powered by vast electric circuits; beads on a string.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Gravity is still spooky action at a distance with no causal mechanism defined .
2. I do n't think time , as in " time lines " or some kind of unidirectional movement through a medium exists .
Now exists , hypostatized out of a past ( which stops existing when it stops being now ) and which in turn hypostatizes the future ( which does not exist .
) 3 .
Electromagnetism is the dominant force in the heavens as it is on Earth .
4. Stars are organisms and they reproduce through fission .
5. Galaxies are powered by vast electric circuits ; beads on a string .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Gravity is still spooky action at a distance with no causal mechanism defined.
2. I don't think time, as in "time lines" or some kind of unidirectional movement through a medium exists.
Now exists, hypostatized out of a past (which stops existing when it stops being now) and which in turn hypostatizes the future (which does not exist.
) 
3.
Electromagnetism is the dominant force in the heavens as it is on Earth.
4. Stars are organisms and they reproduce through fission.
5. Galaxies are powered by vast electric circuits; beads on a string.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30227632</id>
	<title>Re:Spooky action at a distance?</title>
	<author>kovach</author>
	<datestamp>1257185640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a great example of quantum entanglement, and explanation why entanglement doesn't mean FTL communication.</p><p>So basically the two electrons or atoms or whatever particle you are entangling, are made exactly the same, which primes them to give the same result to a measurement that you do later. Nothing too exotic about that.</p><p>I've known this for years, but struggled to explain it to people, guess because I lacked a good example.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a great example of quantum entanglement , and explanation why entanglement does n't mean FTL communication.So basically the two electrons or atoms or whatever particle you are entangling , are made exactly the same , which primes them to give the same result to a measurement that you do later .
Nothing too exotic about that.I 've known this for years , but struggled to explain it to people , guess because I lacked a good example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a great example of quantum entanglement, and explanation why entanglement doesn't mean FTL communication.So basically the two electrons or atoms or whatever particle you are entangling, are made exactly the same, which primes them to give the same result to a measurement that you do later.
Nothing too exotic about that.I've known this for years, but struggled to explain it to people, guess because I lacked a good example.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30222384</id>
	<title>Re:Not again</title>
	<author>ignavus</author>
	<datestamp>1259079360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>All faith is blind.</p></div><p>Your girlfriend ditched you, huh?</p><p>Faith is trusting people. Or not.</p><p>People communicate - that is one of the three ways we know things (the other two are reason and our direct experience).</p><p>We know lots of things by communication<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... because we trust the people who communicated it. How many people take the time to verify for themselves everything they read in science books? I have never been to Moscow, but I know it exists - and I have never seen a proof from pure reason that a Moscow must exist, so that rules out both experience and reason. I know Moscow exists by communication from people who have been there - and I trust them.</p><p>The human race is built on shared experience - which means trust.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All faith is blind.Your girlfriend ditched you , huh ? Faith is trusting people .
Or not.People communicate - that is one of the three ways we know things ( the other two are reason and our direct experience ) .We know lots of things by communication ... because we trust the people who communicated it .
How many people take the time to verify for themselves everything they read in science books ?
I have never been to Moscow , but I know it exists - and I have never seen a proof from pure reason that a Moscow must exist , so that rules out both experience and reason .
I know Moscow exists by communication from people who have been there - and I trust them.The human race is built on shared experience - which means trust .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All faith is blind.Your girlfriend ditched you, huh?Faith is trusting people.
Or not.People communicate - that is one of the three ways we know things (the other two are reason and our direct experience).We know lots of things by communication ... because we trust the people who communicated it.
How many people take the time to verify for themselves everything they read in science books?
I have never been to Moscow, but I know it exists - and I have never seen a proof from pure reason that a Moscow must exist, so that rules out both experience and reason.
I know Moscow exists by communication from people who have been there - and I trust them.The human race is built on shared experience - which means trust.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219282</id>
	<title>I Refuse</title>
	<author>Kidro</author>
	<datestamp>1259059860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I refuse to read TFA. After all, the first thing I learned about gravity was that if I don't know anything about it, it can't effect me! Thank you, professor Coyote.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I refuse to read TFA .
After all , the first thing I learned about gravity was that if I do n't know anything about it , it ca n't effect me !
Thank you , professor Coyote .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I refuse to read TFA.
After all, the first thing I learned about gravity was that if I don't know anything about it, it can't effect me!
Thank you, professor Coyote.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30222818</id>
	<title>Re:And FTL, too</title>
	<author>HighFalutinCoder</author>
	<datestamp>1259083920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Before I read this reply, I thought the grandparent was just stating that something was For The Lose.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Before I read this reply , I thought the grandparent was just stating that something was For The Lose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before I read this reply, I thought the grandparent was just stating that something was For The Lose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219502</id>
	<title>Re:Not again</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1259060880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Recently, paradigms in physics have been interesting in this respect as the new perfectly subsume the prior in their limits. I am not sure that this is a tautology of science, but it is an elegant means of progression.</p></div></blockquote><p>Actually, it's quite simple: The old theory correctly describes the old experiments. If the new theory is to be right, it must also correctly describe the old experiments, therefore under those conditions it must not differ from the old theory any more than the measurement errors.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Recently , paradigms in physics have been interesting in this respect as the new perfectly subsume the prior in their limits .
I am not sure that this is a tautology of science , but it is an elegant means of progression.Actually , it 's quite simple : The old theory correctly describes the old experiments .
If the new theory is to be right , it must also correctly describe the old experiments , therefore under those conditions it must not differ from the old theory any more than the measurement errors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Recently, paradigms in physics have been interesting in this respect as the new perfectly subsume the prior in their limits.
I am not sure that this is a tautology of science, but it is an elegant means of progression.Actually, it's quite simple: The old theory correctly describes the old experiments.
If the new theory is to be right, it must also correctly describe the old experiments, therefore under those conditions it must not differ from the old theory any more than the measurement errors.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30221074</id>
	<title>Re:Practical Application</title>
	<author>HBoar</author>
	<datestamp>1259068860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So which of these is more desirable?  Personally, I'd have to go with Stargate:Atlantis.  It may be rather infantile at times, but it doesn't tend to kill droves of people....</htmltext>
<tokenext>So which of these is more desirable ?
Personally , I 'd have to go with Stargate : Atlantis .
It may be rather infantile at times , but it does n't tend to kill droves of people... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So which of these is more desirable?
Personally, I'd have to go with Stargate:Atlantis.
It may be rather infantile at times, but it doesn't tend to kill droves of people....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219924</id>
	<title>Re:And FTL, too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259062980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>"But he abandoned his model because it allowed information to be communicated faster than the speed of light."</p><p>I'd call that a feature, not a bug!</p></div><p>Exactly!  "Oh no, my theory doesn't match the theory it's replacing!"  Well, experiment, dummy!  Did Einstein say "oh no, my theory allows light rays to bend and makes C the absolute speed!"? No!  He got together with other scientists in 1919 and watched starshine bend around an eclipse.</p></div><p>Um, I don't think you really understand how science progresses.  It typically builds upon previous theories, doesn't replace them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" But he abandoned his model because it allowed information to be communicated faster than the speed of light .
" I 'd call that a feature , not a bug ! Exactly !
" Oh no , my theory does n't match the theory it 's replacing !
" Well , experiment , dummy !
Did Einstein say " oh no , my theory allows light rays to bend and makes C the absolute speed ! " ?
No ! He got together with other scientists in 1919 and watched starshine bend around an eclipse.Um , I do n't think you really understand how science progresses .
It typically builds upon previous theories , does n't replace them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"But he abandoned his model because it allowed information to be communicated faster than the speed of light.
"I'd call that a feature, not a bug!Exactly!
"Oh no, my theory doesn't match the theory it's replacing!
"  Well, experiment, dummy!
Did Einstein say "oh no, my theory allows light rays to bend and makes C the absolute speed!"?
No!  He got together with other scientists in 1919 and watched starshine bend around an eclipse.Um, I don't think you really understand how science progresses.
It typically builds upon previous theories, doesn't replace them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220760</id>
	<title>Embrace, Extend and Extinguish</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259066940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe this new theory will Embrace, Extend and Extinguish General Relativity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe this new theory will Embrace , Extend and Extinguish General Relativity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe this new theory will Embrace, Extend and Extinguish General Relativity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219526</id>
	<title>Re:And FTL, too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259061000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's strange to me that Dvali would abandon his model for allowing FTL propagation of information unless he experimentally checked the conditions in question to see if information really could propagate FTL in those cases.</p></div><p>Sorry, my bad. I have to be the one who checks for FTL propagation, union rules. I'll get to it after I finish my "get laid" project. I'm particularly hopeful. Just the other day, I made eye contact for 1.3 seconds with what I assume to be the female of our species. I think I can get that up to 10 seconds without breaking any laws of the legal kind. It's very promising progress here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's strange to me that Dvali would abandon his model for allowing FTL propagation of information unless he experimentally checked the conditions in question to see if information really could propagate FTL in those cases.Sorry , my bad .
I have to be the one who checks for FTL propagation , union rules .
I 'll get to it after I finish my " get laid " project .
I 'm particularly hopeful .
Just the other day , I made eye contact for 1.3 seconds with what I assume to be the female of our species .
I think I can get that up to 10 seconds without breaking any laws of the legal kind .
It 's very promising progress here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's strange to me that Dvali would abandon his model for allowing FTL propagation of information unless he experimentally checked the conditions in question to see if information really could propagate FTL in those cases.Sorry, my bad.
I have to be the one who checks for FTL propagation, union rules.
I'll get to it after I finish my "get laid" project.
I'm particularly hopeful.
Just the other day, I made eye contact for 1.3 seconds with what I assume to be the female of our species.
I think I can get that up to 10 seconds without breaking any laws of the legal kind.
It's very promising progress here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219210</id>
	<title>Re:String Theory</title>
	<author>skynexus</author>
	<datestamp>1259059620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it is an alternative to string theory.</p><p>From <a href="http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=313565" title="physicsforums.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=313565</a> [physicsforums.com]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Compared to string theory - much simpler and works in 3+1 dimensions
<br>
Compared to LQG - the classical limit is not a problem</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it is an alternative to string theory.From http : //www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php ? t = 313565 [ physicsforums.com ] : Compared to string theory - much simpler and works in 3 + 1 dimensions Compared to LQG - the classical limit is not a problem</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it is an alternative to string theory.From http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=313565 [physicsforums.com] :Compared to string theory - much simpler and works in 3+1 dimensions

Compared to LQG - the classical limit is not a problem
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30222554</id>
	<title>Re:Not again</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1259081220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"The idea that people EVER need to make a leap of faith is total BS."</i>
<br> <br>
Faith is exaclty what is required everytime you drive through a green light. The very reason you don't think faith is required is because living beings have an unshakeable faith in their own faculties and perceptions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The idea that people EVER need to make a leap of faith is total BS .
" Faith is exaclty what is required everytime you drive through a green light .
The very reason you do n't think faith is required is because living beings have an unshakeable faith in their own faculties and perceptions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The idea that people EVER need to make a leap of faith is total BS.
"
 
Faith is exaclty what is required everytime you drive through a green light.
The very reason you don't think faith is required is because living beings have an unshakeable faith in their own faculties and perceptions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219392</id>
	<title>Re:So help me out here.</title>
	<author>azgard</author>
	<datestamp>1259060340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think someone is pulling strings there...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think someone is pulling strings there.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think someone is pulling strings there...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218532</id>
	<title>Oh no...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259056620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean the space-time continuum doesn't exist? Star Trek is wrong?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean the space-time continuum does n't exist ?
Star Trek is wrong ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean the space-time continuum doesn't exist?
Star Trek is wrong?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30221276</id>
	<title>Rather than viewing this as overturning Einstein</title>
	<author>mpsmps</author>
	<datestamp>1259070120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember the saying that science proceeds by successive approximation to the truth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember the saying that science proceeds by successive approximation to the truth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember the saying that science proceeds by successive approximation to the truth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30221094</id>
	<title>Re:Here's the actual article</title>
	<author>kbob88</author>
	<datestamp>1259069040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>PS Slashdot has the slowest comment preview of any website I know.</p></div><p>That's because it's disconnected from space and time</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>PS Slashdot has the slowest comment preview of any website I know.That 's because it 's disconnected from space and time</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PS Slashdot has the slowest comment preview of any website I know.That's because it's disconnected from space and time
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218826</id>
	<title>Just Because...</title>
	<author>KingPin27</author>
	<datestamp>1259057880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just because communication at FTL speeds doesn't fit the model as we can understand it doesnt mean that it doesn't or cannot occur.  We should stop dismissing ideas of science simply because they don't fit with what we believe should happen.  It is entirely plausible that there are things that happen in the universe that we cannot yet mathematically explain - but because we cannot fully mathematically explain them they should not be dismissed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because communication at FTL speeds does n't fit the model as we can understand it doesnt mean that it does n't or can not occur .
We should stop dismissing ideas of science simply because they do n't fit with what we believe should happen .
It is entirely plausible that there are things that happen in the universe that we can not yet mathematically explain - but because we can not fully mathematically explain them they should not be dismissed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because communication at FTL speeds doesn't fit the model as we can understand it doesnt mean that it doesn't or cannot occur.
We should stop dismissing ideas of science simply because they don't fit with what we believe should happen.
It is entirely plausible that there are things that happen in the universe that we cannot yet mathematically explain - but because we cannot fully mathematically explain them they should not be dismissed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30235602</id>
	<title>Re:I have a hypothesis about gravity.</title>
	<author>Warbothong</author>
	<datestamp>1259236920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My hypothesis about gravity:</p><p>Everything is growing. We can't see anything growing, because our rulers and tapemesures and everything is growing. That's gravity: Just the growing earth pushing against your growing feet. Gravity at a distance is just objects growing towards each others (the void doesn't grow). Come to think of it. It's probably a bad hypothesis. It couldn't explain a slingshot effect, could it? Nevermind.</p></div><p>That's not really a theory of gravity, but has been observed nontheless. Take out the part about "the void doesn't grow" and you've got a Universe expanding in higher dimensions. Observations seem to imply that volumes grow proportionally, so if a distance AB is growing at rate r then a distance AC = 10*AB will be growing at around 10*r. However, rather than things getting closer together, this can be observed by A as "B is moving away from me at a speed s, whilst C is moving away from me at a speed 10*s".</p><p>The causal mechanism proposed to explain this is "dark energy", which has the peculiar property of having a uniform density everywhere, even across intergalactic emptiness. Its effect is analogous to the air pressure inside a balloon causing it to expand. Taking dark energy and an expanding universe to its logical conclusion gives the "big rip", where everything has zoomed away from everything else so much that even the distance between one end of a particle and the other is too long for light to traverse, and it keeps on getting bigger, leaving only point-like entities (if such things exist) in their own little causal bubbles, completely isolated from everything else forever.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My hypothesis about gravity : Everything is growing .
We ca n't see anything growing , because our rulers and tapemesures and everything is growing .
That 's gravity : Just the growing earth pushing against your growing feet .
Gravity at a distance is just objects growing towards each others ( the void does n't grow ) .
Come to think of it .
It 's probably a bad hypothesis .
It could n't explain a slingshot effect , could it ?
Nevermind.That 's not really a theory of gravity , but has been observed nontheless .
Take out the part about " the void does n't grow " and you 've got a Universe expanding in higher dimensions .
Observations seem to imply that volumes grow proportionally , so if a distance AB is growing at rate r then a distance AC = 10 * AB will be growing at around 10 * r. However , rather than things getting closer together , this can be observed by A as " B is moving away from me at a speed s , whilst C is moving away from me at a speed 10 * s " .The causal mechanism proposed to explain this is " dark energy " , which has the peculiar property of having a uniform density everywhere , even across intergalactic emptiness .
Its effect is analogous to the air pressure inside a balloon causing it to expand .
Taking dark energy and an expanding universe to its logical conclusion gives the " big rip " , where everything has zoomed away from everything else so much that even the distance between one end of a particle and the other is too long for light to traverse , and it keeps on getting bigger , leaving only point-like entities ( if such things exist ) in their own little causal bubbles , completely isolated from everything else forever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My hypothesis about gravity:Everything is growing.
We can't see anything growing, because our rulers and tapemesures and everything is growing.
That's gravity: Just the growing earth pushing against your growing feet.
Gravity at a distance is just objects growing towards each others (the void doesn't grow).
Come to think of it.
It's probably a bad hypothesis.
It couldn't explain a slingshot effect, could it?
Nevermind.That's not really a theory of gravity, but has been observed nontheless.
Take out the part about "the void doesn't grow" and you've got a Universe expanding in higher dimensions.
Observations seem to imply that volumes grow proportionally, so if a distance AB is growing at rate r then a distance AC = 10*AB will be growing at around 10*r. However, rather than things getting closer together, this can be observed by A as "B is moving away from me at a speed s, whilst C is moving away from me at a speed 10*s".The causal mechanism proposed to explain this is "dark energy", which has the peculiar property of having a uniform density everywhere, even across intergalactic emptiness.
Its effect is analogous to the air pressure inside a balloon causing it to expand.
Taking dark energy and an expanding universe to its logical conclusion gives the "big rip", where everything has zoomed away from everything else so much that even the distance between one end of a particle and the other is too long for light to traverse, and it keeps on getting bigger, leaving only point-like entities (if such things exist) in their own little causal bubbles, completely isolated from everything else forever.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30223170</id>
	<title>Re:some modest hypotheses</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1259088780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My own modest hypothesis is that your bullshit detector is broken.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My own modest hypothesis is that your bullshit detector is broken .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My own modest hypothesis is that your bullshit detector is broken.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30226558</id>
	<title>Whoa... heavy.</title>
	<author>n3tcat</author>
	<datestamp>1257180420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's that word again... "heavy". Why are things so heavy in the future? Is there a problem with the earth's gravitational pull?</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's that word again... " heavy " . Why are things so heavy in the future ?
Is there a problem with the earth 's gravitational pull ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's that word again... "heavy". Why are things so heavy in the future?
Is there a problem with the earth's gravitational pull?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220142</id>
	<title>Shameless Wikipedia copy/paste:</title>
	<author>grimJester</author>
	<datestamp>1259063820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In physics the term theory is generally used for a mathematical framework--derived from a small set of basic postulates (usually symmetries--like equality of locations in space or in time, or identity of electrons, etc.)--which is capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems. A good example is classical electromagnetism, which encompasses results derived from gauge symmetry (sometimes called gauge invariance) in a form of a few equations called Maxwell's equations. Note that the specific theoretical aspects of classical electromagnetic theory, which have been consistently and successfully replicated for well over a century, are termed "laws of electromagnetism", reflecting that they are today taken for granted. Within electromagnetic theory generally, there are numerous hypotheses about how electromagnetism applies to specific situations. Many of these hypotheses are already considered to be adequately tested, with new ones always in the making and perhaps untested.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In physics the term theory is generally used for a mathematical framework--derived from a small set of basic postulates ( usually symmetries--like equality of locations in space or in time , or identity of electrons , etc .
) --which is capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems .
A good example is classical electromagnetism , which encompasses results derived from gauge symmetry ( sometimes called gauge invariance ) in a form of a few equations called Maxwell 's equations .
Note that the specific theoretical aspects of classical electromagnetic theory , which have been consistently and successfully replicated for well over a century , are termed " laws of electromagnetism " , reflecting that they are today taken for granted .
Within electromagnetic theory generally , there are numerous hypotheses about how electromagnetism applies to specific situations .
Many of these hypotheses are already considered to be adequately tested , with new ones always in the making and perhaps untested .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In physics the term theory is generally used for a mathematical framework--derived from a small set of basic postulates (usually symmetries--like equality of locations in space or in time, or identity of electrons, etc.
)--which is capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems.
A good example is classical electromagnetism, which encompasses results derived from gauge symmetry (sometimes called gauge invariance) in a form of a few equations called Maxwell's equations.
Note that the specific theoretical aspects of classical electromagnetic theory, which have been consistently and successfully replicated for well over a century, are termed "laws of electromagnetism", reflecting that they are today taken for granted.
Within electromagnetic theory generally, there are numerous hypotheses about how electromagnetism applies to specific situations.
Many of these hypotheses are already considered to be adequately tested, with new ones always in the making and perhaps untested.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30223974</id>
	<title>Philosophical undestanding of time</title>
	<author>bug1</author>
	<datestamp>1257157260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Time doesnt "exist", its an abstract concept that humans use to represent how <i>stuff</i> changes.</p><p>Nobody can change time (or anything else that doesnt exist), but we can change the <i>stuff</i> that time measures.</p><p>Make an analogy to a car, velocity is similarly an abstract concept, its a measure of how far stuff moves within a certain time, for simplicity we talk about changing the velocity of our car, but really we are changing the cars location within a certain time.</p><p>By what reason do physicists claim time exists ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time doesnt " exist " , its an abstract concept that humans use to represent how stuff changes.Nobody can change time ( or anything else that doesnt exist ) , but we can change the stuff that time measures.Make an analogy to a car , velocity is similarly an abstract concept , its a measure of how far stuff moves within a certain time , for simplicity we talk about changing the velocity of our car , but really we are changing the cars location within a certain time.By what reason do physicists claim time exists ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time doesnt "exist", its an abstract concept that humans use to represent how stuff changes.Nobody can change time (or anything else that doesnt exist), but we can change the stuff that time measures.Make an analogy to a car, velocity is similarly an abstract concept, its a measure of how far stuff moves within a certain time, for simplicity we talk about changing the velocity of our car, but really we are changing the cars location within a certain time.By what reason do physicists claim time exists ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30222356</id>
	<title>Re:Not again</title>
	<author>TheoMurpse</author>
	<datestamp>1259079180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>At its root religions are unchanging, or at least the Judeo-Christian ones are meant to be.</p></div></blockquote><p>That assertion needs some supporting evidence. Considering God gave the Israelites Laws of Leviticus and then appended 10 Commandments and then concatenated one Golden Rule over time, I'd say the religion was designed to change.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At its root religions are unchanging , or at least the Judeo-Christian ones are meant to be.That assertion needs some supporting evidence .
Considering God gave the Israelites Laws of Leviticus and then appended 10 Commandments and then concatenated one Golden Rule over time , I 'd say the religion was designed to change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At its root religions are unchanging, or at least the Judeo-Christian ones are meant to be.That assertion needs some supporting evidence.
Considering God gave the Israelites Laws of Leviticus and then appended 10 Commandments and then concatenated one Golden Rule over time, I'd say the religion was designed to change.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30221542</id>
	<title>Re:Theory or Hypothesis?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259072340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Welcome to the world of modern physics, where ALL current major "theories" are actually hypothesis without much experimental data. Why else do you think there's so many competing modern "theories"? The problem of course is it takes increasingly expensive and complicated things to actually test stuff. So while fancy gravity wave detecting satellites and the LHC sit there and collect data theorists need SOMETHING to do, at the very least they're going to have to justify they're pay right?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p><p>Still, we're a long way from Archmidese and other guys that could come up with a hypothesis, go out and test it, then build something useful out of it all in the same lifetime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome to the world of modern physics , where ALL current major " theories " are actually hypothesis without much experimental data .
Why else do you think there 's so many competing modern " theories " ?
The problem of course is it takes increasingly expensive and complicated things to actually test stuff .
So while fancy gravity wave detecting satellites and the LHC sit there and collect data theorists need SOMETHING to do , at the very least they 're going to have to justify they 're pay right ?
: PStill , we 're a long way from Archmidese and other guys that could come up with a hypothesis , go out and test it , then build something useful out of it all in the same lifetime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Welcome to the world of modern physics, where ALL current major "theories" are actually hypothesis without much experimental data.
Why else do you think there's so many competing modern "theories"?
The problem of course is it takes increasingly expensive and complicated things to actually test stuff.
So while fancy gravity wave detecting satellites and the LHC sit there and collect data theorists need SOMETHING to do, at the very least they're going to have to justify they're pay right?
:PStill, we're a long way from Archmidese and other guys that could come up with a hypothesis, go out and test it, then build something useful out of it all in the same lifetime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218912</id>
	<title>Travel...</title>
	<author>TheGreatOrangePeel</author>
	<datestamp>1259058120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If it means that we can travel through space at FTL speeds, I'll buy it. Heck. I'll take two, but if I do, you have to let me be Worf.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it means that we can travel through space at FTL speeds , I 'll buy it .
Heck. I 'll take two , but if I do , you have to let me be Worf .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it means that we can travel through space at FTL speeds, I'll buy it.
Heck. I'll take two, but if I do, you have to let me be Worf.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218734</id>
	<title>Here's the actual article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259057580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.3775" title="arxiv.org" rel="nofollow">http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.3775</a> [arxiv.org]

PS Slashdot has the slowest comment preview of any website I know.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //arxiv.org/abs/0901.3775 [ arxiv.org ] PS Slashdot has the slowest comment preview of any website I know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.3775 [arxiv.org]

PS Slashdot has the slowest comment preview of any website I know.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218836</id>
	<title>Re:And FTL, too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259057940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"But he abandoned his model because it allowed information to be communicated faster than the speed of light."<br>
I'd call that a feature, not a bug!</p></div><p>Exactly!  "Oh no, my theory doesn't match the theory it's replacing!"  Well, experiment, dummy!  Did Einstein say "oh no, my theory allows light rays to bend and makes C the absolute speed!"? No!  He got together with other scientists in 1919 and watched starshine bend around an eclipse.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" But he abandoned his model because it allowed information to be communicated faster than the speed of light .
" I 'd call that a feature , not a bug ! Exactly !
" Oh no , my theory does n't match the theory it 's replacing !
" Well , experiment , dummy !
Did Einstein say " oh no , my theory allows light rays to bend and makes C the absolute speed ! " ?
No ! He got together with other scientists in 1919 and watched starshine bend around an eclipse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"But he abandoned his model because it allowed information to be communicated faster than the speed of light.
"
I'd call that a feature, not a bug!Exactly!
"Oh no, my theory doesn't match the theory it's replacing!
"  Well, experiment, dummy!
Did Einstein say "oh no, my theory allows light rays to bend and makes C the absolute speed!"?
No!  He got together with other scientists in 1919 and watched starshine bend around an eclipse.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218666</id>
	<title>New theory on funding?</title>
	<author>ubergeek65536</author>
	<datestamp>1259057220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are all scrambling for new theories on how to get research money now that string theory is loosing momentum.  What Brian Greene has been up to lately?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are all scrambling for new theories on how to get research money now that string theory is loosing momentum .
What Brian Greene has been up to lately ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are all scrambling for new theories on how to get research money now that string theory is loosing momentum.
What Brian Greene has been up to lately?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220268</id>
	<title>Re:So help me out here.</title>
	<author>clickety6</author>
	<datestamp>1259064480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It don't suck, man! It's massive!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It do n't suck , man !
It 's massive !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It don't suck, man!
It's massive!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218576</id>
	<title>And FTL, too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259056860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Special relativity, of course, forbids sending information faster than light.  A theory supplanting the space-time unification of General Relativity would also supplant special relativity, and hence might not have that limitation.  Here's an inteersting tidbit from the article: <i>"Gia Dvali, a quantum gravity expert at CERN, remains cautious. A few years ago he tried a similar trick, breaking apart space and time in an attempt to explain dark energy. But he abandoned his model because it allowed information to be communicated faster than the speed of light."</i>
</p><p>I'd call that a feature, not a bug!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Special relativity , of course , forbids sending information faster than light .
A theory supplanting the space-time unification of General Relativity would also supplant special relativity , and hence might not have that limitation .
Here 's an inteersting tidbit from the article : " Gia Dvali , a quantum gravity expert at CERN , remains cautious .
A few years ago he tried a similar trick , breaking apart space and time in an attempt to explain dark energy .
But he abandoned his model because it allowed information to be communicated faster than the speed of light .
" I 'd call that a feature , not a bug !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Special relativity, of course, forbids sending information faster than light.
A theory supplanting the space-time unification of General Relativity would also supplant special relativity, and hence might not have that limitation.
Here's an inteersting tidbit from the article: "Gia Dvali, a quantum gravity expert at CERN, remains cautious.
A few years ago he tried a similar trick, breaking apart space and time in an attempt to explain dark energy.
But he abandoned his model because it allowed information to be communicated faster than the speed of light.
"
I'd call that a feature, not a bug!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219046</id>
	<title>Re:So help me out here.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259058780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who modded this troll? Are you people completely devoid of humor? Something must have sucked the fun out of your lives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who modded this troll ?
Are you people completely devoid of humor ?
Something must have sucked the fun out of your lives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who modded this troll?
Are you people completely devoid of humor?
Something must have sucked the fun out of your lives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219112</id>
	<title>Re:Not again</title>
	<author>Rand310</author>
	<datestamp>1259059080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yep.  It's called the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence\_principle" title="wikipedia.org">Correspondence Principle</a> [wikipedia.org] when applied to quantum/classical mechanics.  Basically, Newton's equations 'fall out' of Einstein's when you assume the speed of light is a big number relative to all other speeds.
<br>
Recently, paradigms in physics have been interesting in this respect as the new perfectly subsume the prior in their limits. I am not sure that this is a tautology of science, but it is an elegant means of progression.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep .
It 's called the Correspondence Principle [ wikipedia.org ] when applied to quantum/classical mechanics .
Basically , Newton 's equations 'fall out ' of Einstein 's when you assume the speed of light is a big number relative to all other speeds .
Recently , paradigms in physics have been interesting in this respect as the new perfectly subsume the prior in their limits .
I am not sure that this is a tautology of science , but it is an elegant means of progression .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep.
It's called the Correspondence Principle [wikipedia.org] when applied to quantum/classical mechanics.
Basically, Newton's equations 'fall out' of Einstein's when you assume the speed of light is a big number relative to all other speeds.
Recently, paradigms in physics have been interesting in this respect as the new perfectly subsume the prior in their limits.
I am not sure that this is a tautology of science, but it is an elegant means of progression.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30224486</id>
	<title>Re:Here's the actual article</title>
	<author>Johnno74</author>
	<datestamp>1257162960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.3775" title="arxiv.org">http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.3775</a> [arxiv.org]</p><p>PS Slashdot has the slowest comment preview of any website I know.</p></div><p>I blame MySQL.  AFAIK slashdot uses a cluster of mysql servers, in a master/slave setup where only one server handles updates/inserts, which are then propogated to the other servers so any server can handle a DB reads (probably 95\%+ of the queries)</p><p>My theory is an insert is much slower than an update.  A preview actually inserts a record, a submit only updates the record to "active".  I haven't actually looked at slashcode to check, perl makes my brain hurt.</p><p>Of course,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. is one of the busier sites on teh interwebs so I shouldn't complain to much.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //arxiv.org/abs/0901.3775 [ arxiv.org ] PS Slashdot has the slowest comment preview of any website I know.I blame MySQL .
AFAIK slashdot uses a cluster of mysql servers , in a master/slave setup where only one server handles updates/inserts , which are then propogated to the other servers so any server can handle a DB reads ( probably 95 \ % + of the queries ) My theory is an insert is much slower than an update .
A preview actually inserts a record , a submit only updates the record to " active " .
I have n't actually looked at slashcode to check , perl makes my brain hurt.Of course , / .
is one of the busier sites on teh interwebs so I should n't complain to much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.3775 [arxiv.org]PS Slashdot has the slowest comment preview of any website I know.I blame MySQL.
AFAIK slashdot uses a cluster of mysql servers, in a master/slave setup where only one server handles updates/inserts, which are then propogated to the other servers so any server can handle a DB reads (probably 95\%+ of the queries)My theory is an insert is much slower than an update.
A preview actually inserts a record, a submit only updates the record to "active".
I haven't actually looked at slashcode to check, perl makes my brain hurt.Of course, /.
is one of the busier sites on teh interwebs so I shouldn't complain to much.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30223524</id>
	<title>Re:And FTL, too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257193920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I came here to write about that too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I came here to write about that too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I came here to write about that too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219650</id>
	<title>Too late, the science was already settled</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259061600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This can't possibly be correct. Don't you remember? The science is already settled! Whew - boy, glad that's over (hand wiping)!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This ca n't possibly be correct .
Do n't you remember ?
The science is already settled !
Whew - boy , glad that 's over ( hand wiping ) !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This can't possibly be correct.
Don't you remember?
The science is already settled!
Whew - boy, glad that's over (hand wiping)!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30222850</id>
	<title>Re:ZZZTTT !</title>
	<author>Kevin McCready</author>
	<datestamp>1259084340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"desire of the particle physicists to have a flat spacetime at high enough energies, no matter what, seems, well, quaint."

not being a mathematician or physicist, hope you can explain this to me</htmltext>
<tokenext>" desire of the particle physicists to have a flat spacetime at high enough energies , no matter what , seems , well , quaint .
" not being a mathematician or physicist , hope you can explain this to me</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"desire of the particle physicists to have a flat spacetime at high enough energies, no matter what, seems, well, quaint.
"

not being a mathematician or physicist, hope you can explain this to me</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30222726</id>
	<title>Re:And FTL, too</title>
	<author>Americium</author>
	<datestamp>1259082960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The quantum correlation is instantaneous!  There is supposedly a lower limit from that wiki article (THE WORST PLACE EVER FOR QM), but that's just from experiment, current theories predict it to be instantaneous, or simply a feature of nature. Furthermore, there are no hidden variables transferring this information, as has been proven many years ago.

This in no way means information can be transmitted faster than the speed of light.

You don't even need to go to entanglement go have something travel faster than the speed of light. The front of a laser pulse can travel faster than c when entering certain materials, yet information still cannot be transmitted faster than c.

The way around this limit is to bend space sufficiently, so the distance is shortened, you would have to harness the energy of a black hole.

Unless you have a PHD in quantum field theory, good luck understanding this theory at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The quantum correlation is instantaneous !
There is supposedly a lower limit from that wiki article ( THE WORST PLACE EVER FOR QM ) , but that 's just from experiment , current theories predict it to be instantaneous , or simply a feature of nature .
Furthermore , there are no hidden variables transferring this information , as has been proven many years ago .
This in no way means information can be transmitted faster than the speed of light .
You do n't even need to go to entanglement go have something travel faster than the speed of light .
The front of a laser pulse can travel faster than c when entering certain materials , yet information still can not be transmitted faster than c . The way around this limit is to bend space sufficiently , so the distance is shortened , you would have to harness the energy of a black hole .
Unless you have a PHD in quantum field theory , good luck understanding this theory at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The quantum correlation is instantaneous!
There is supposedly a lower limit from that wiki article (THE WORST PLACE EVER FOR QM), but that's just from experiment, current theories predict it to be instantaneous, or simply a feature of nature.
Furthermore, there are no hidden variables transferring this information, as has been proven many years ago.
This in no way means information can be transmitted faster than the speed of light.
You don't even need to go to entanglement go have something travel faster than the speed of light.
The front of a laser pulse can travel faster than c when entering certain materials, yet information still cannot be transmitted faster than c.

The way around this limit is to bend space sufficiently, so the distance is shortened, you would have to harness the energy of a black hole.
Unless you have a PHD in quantum field theory, good luck understanding this theory at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219912</id>
	<title>Re:I have a hypothesis about gravity.</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1259062920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have the belief the the outside of the universe is the surface of the earth. As you move towards the center things get smaller because space is bent. I'm pretty sure there are no holes in this...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have the belief the the outside of the universe is the surface of the earth .
As you move towards the center things get smaller because space is bent .
I 'm pretty sure there are no holes in this.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have the belief the the outside of the universe is the surface of the earth.
As you move towards the center things get smaller because space is bent.
I'm pretty sure there are no holes in this...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30221856</id>
	<title>A Picture and A Question</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1259074740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the description in TFA I think a very useful illustration of the concepts of the 3 to 1 space enfolding and the decoupling of space and time as equivalent in relativistic terms can be seen in "A Brief History Of Time". Hawking describes his alternative to a big bang singularity, showing that near the event, time and space would fold into each other, rounding off the point of the light cone. The illustrations use a single space dimension line to represent all 3. Here the picture can simply be taken as more accurate than that schematic had intended to portray. In ABHoT time and space lose their right angle relationship, a function of relativity. Here, they lose their relativistic relationship at high energies (a singularity should probably count), become decoupled in their original sense, and take on a different relationship. Taken together, if the 3 space dimensions enfold into 1, and the 3-in-1 folds over (decouples from the right angle) and approaches the time line, you have 3 space lines approaching parallel with the one time line. From TFA: "within this regime, space stretches only a third as quickly as time." Restated, three space dimensions together would stretch at the same rate (under these conditions) as the one time dimension.</p><p>Of course that may just be my tendency towards visual cognition trying to fit things together. Therefore, the question: can anybody suggest a 'for dummies' version? Something that describes the math rather than requiring one to follow the mathematical development? Pictures would be helpful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the description in TFA I think a very useful illustration of the concepts of the 3 to 1 space enfolding and the decoupling of space and time as equivalent in relativistic terms can be seen in " A Brief History Of Time " .
Hawking describes his alternative to a big bang singularity , showing that near the event , time and space would fold into each other , rounding off the point of the light cone .
The illustrations use a single space dimension line to represent all 3 .
Here the picture can simply be taken as more accurate than that schematic had intended to portray .
In ABHoT time and space lose their right angle relationship , a function of relativity .
Here , they lose their relativistic relationship at high energies ( a singularity should probably count ) , become decoupled in their original sense , and take on a different relationship .
Taken together , if the 3 space dimensions enfold into 1 , and the 3-in-1 folds over ( decouples from the right angle ) and approaches the time line , you have 3 space lines approaching parallel with the one time line .
From TFA : " within this regime , space stretches only a third as quickly as time .
" Restated , three space dimensions together would stretch at the same rate ( under these conditions ) as the one time dimension.Of course that may just be my tendency towards visual cognition trying to fit things together .
Therefore , the question : can anybody suggest a 'for dummies ' version ?
Something that describes the math rather than requiring one to follow the mathematical development ?
Pictures would be helpful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the description in TFA I think a very useful illustration of the concepts of the 3 to 1 space enfolding and the decoupling of space and time as equivalent in relativistic terms can be seen in "A Brief History Of Time".
Hawking describes his alternative to a big bang singularity, showing that near the event, time and space would fold into each other, rounding off the point of the light cone.
The illustrations use a single space dimension line to represent all 3.
Here the picture can simply be taken as more accurate than that schematic had intended to portray.
In ABHoT time and space lose their right angle relationship, a function of relativity.
Here, they lose their relativistic relationship at high energies (a singularity should probably count), become decoupled in their original sense, and take on a different relationship.
Taken together, if the 3 space dimensions enfold into 1, and the 3-in-1 folds over (decouples from the right angle) and approaches the time line, you have 3 space lines approaching parallel with the one time line.
From TFA: "within this regime, space stretches only a third as quickly as time.
" Restated, three space dimensions together would stretch at the same rate (under these conditions) as the one time dimension.Of course that may just be my tendency towards visual cognition trying to fit things together.
Therefore, the question: can anybody suggest a 'for dummies' version?
Something that describes the math rather than requiring one to follow the mathematical development?
Pictures would be helpful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30240618</id>
	<title>Illusion of dark matter</title>
	<author>incense</author>
	<datestamp>1259238240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Horava&rsquo;s graviton fluctuates as it interacts with normal matter, making gravity pull a bit more strongly than expected in general relativity."</p><p>Now that's what sounds promising. Dark matter always seemed like an ad hoc explanaition. How would you (try to) falsify that dark matter exist under the current theories that are predicting it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Horava    s graviton fluctuates as it interacts with normal matter , making gravity pull a bit more strongly than expected in general relativity .
" Now that 's what sounds promising .
Dark matter always seemed like an ad hoc explanaition .
How would you ( try to ) falsify that dark matter exist under the current theories that are predicting it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Horava’s graviton fluctuates as it interacts with normal matter, making gravity pull a bit more strongly than expected in general relativity.
"Now that's what sounds promising.
Dark matter always seemed like an ad hoc explanaition.
How would you (try to) falsify that dark matter exist under the current theories that are predicting it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219396</id>
	<title>Re:And FTL, too</title>
	<author>awolbach</author>
	<datestamp>1259060400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd respectfully disagree and say it's pretty bad from the computer science side of things.  There's plenty of experimental evidence that indirectly suggests FTL information propagation is impossible, if you consider that allowing it enables the efficient computation of NP-complete problems, for which I'll cite Prof. Aaronson at <a href="http://scottaaronson.com/blog/" title="scottaaronson.com" rel="nofollow">Shtetl-Optimized</a> [scottaaronson.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd respectfully disagree and say it 's pretty bad from the computer science side of things .
There 's plenty of experimental evidence that indirectly suggests FTL information propagation is impossible , if you consider that allowing it enables the efficient computation of NP-complete problems , for which I 'll cite Prof. Aaronson at Shtetl-Optimized [ scottaaronson.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd respectfully disagree and say it's pretty bad from the computer science side of things.
There's plenty of experimental evidence that indirectly suggests FTL information propagation is impossible, if you consider that allowing it enables the efficient computation of NP-complete problems, for which I'll cite Prof. Aaronson at Shtetl-Optimized [scottaaronson.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219292</id>
	<title>Re:Theory or Hypothesis?</title>
	<author>Aaron\_Pike</author>
	<datestamp>1259059920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, I believe one might find that Horava gravity <i>is</i> a theory, and that the hypothesis is that it is an accurate theory that matches with reality. But I agree with you in principle.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I believe one might find that Horava gravity is a theory , and that the hypothesis is that it is an accurate theory that matches with reality .
But I agree with you in principle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I believe one might find that Horava gravity is a theory, and that the hypothesis is that it is an accurate theory that matches with reality.
But I agree with you in principle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218648</id>
	<title>So help me out here.</title>
	<author>ErikTheRed</author>
	<datestamp>1259057100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this theory suck or is there some pull to it? It just seems so weighty to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this theory suck or is there some pull to it ?
It just seems so weighty to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this theory suck or is there some pull to it?
It just seems so weighty to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30221772</id>
	<title>Re:And FTL, too</title>
	<author>Roger W Moore</author>
	<datestamp>1259074020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's strange to me that Dvali would abandon his model for allowing FTL propagation of information unless he experimentally checked the conditions in question</p></div><p>
It's not strange at all - that's normal. There are so many theoretical possibilities that you cannot possibly experimentally check every single one of them. You use your intuition and experience to concentrate your time on the ones that appear more likely to agree with existing experimental data. This is why the most important contributions often come from younger, less experienced scientists. They don't have the experience that gets in the way of trying detailed calculations of a crazy new idea. Of course 99.99...\% of the time experience is correct but in some rare cases things work out differently than expected and that is what leads to breakthroughs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's strange to me that Dvali would abandon his model for allowing FTL propagation of information unless he experimentally checked the conditions in question It 's not strange at all - that 's normal .
There are so many theoretical possibilities that you can not possibly experimentally check every single one of them .
You use your intuition and experience to concentrate your time on the ones that appear more likely to agree with existing experimental data .
This is why the most important contributions often come from younger , less experienced scientists .
They do n't have the experience that gets in the way of trying detailed calculations of a crazy new idea .
Of course 99.99... \ % of the time experience is correct but in some rare cases things work out differently than expected and that is what leads to breakthroughs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's strange to me that Dvali would abandon his model for allowing FTL propagation of information unless he experimentally checked the conditions in question
It's not strange at all - that's normal.
There are so many theoretical possibilities that you cannot possibly experimentally check every single one of them.
You use your intuition and experience to concentrate your time on the ones that appear more likely to agree with existing experimental data.
This is why the most important contributions often come from younger, less experienced scientists.
They don't have the experience that gets in the way of trying detailed calculations of a crazy new idea.
Of course 99.99...\% of the time experience is correct but in some rare cases things work out differently than expected and that is what leads to breakthroughs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30221368</id>
	<title>Re:Just wondering out loud...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259070780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...local disturbances in he quantum tachyon field only propagate with light speed...</p></div><p>... Make it so, Mr. LaForge.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...local disturbances in he quantum tachyon field only propagate with light speed...... Make it so , Mr. LaForge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...local disturbances in he quantum tachyon field only propagate with light speed...... Make it so, Mr. LaForge.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30224762</id>
	<title>Many Problems</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257167220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just finished reading this article: <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.2579v2" title="arxiv.org" rel="nofollow">http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.2579v2</a> [arxiv.org] "Strong coupling in Horava gravity"
And in one short sentence, there is a lot of problems with theory, and as a theorist, I don't think it's a viable one!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just finished reading this article : http : //arxiv.org/abs/0905.2579v2 [ arxiv.org ] " Strong coupling in Horava gravity " And in one short sentence , there is a lot of problems with theory , and as a theorist , I do n't think it 's a viable one !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just finished reading this article: http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.2579v2 [arxiv.org] "Strong coupling in Horava gravity"
And in one short sentence, there is a lot of problems with theory, and as a theorist, I don't think it's a viable one!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30223964</id>
	<title>Link?</title>
	<author>Pictish Prince</author>
	<datestamp>1257157200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is there any freakin link to the paper?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there any freakin link to the paper ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there any freakin link to the paper?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219322</id>
	<title>Re:Theory or Hypothesis?</title>
	<author>glwtta</author>
	<datestamp>1259060040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>If scientists, science fans, and science writers do not use the words correctly how are we to defend the difference when creationists come around misusing the words?</i>
<br> <br>
Oh get off it.  They are using the word correctly, they are just using it in the common sense, rather than the strictly technical sense.  And yes, here it means "hypothesis".
<br> <br>
Words can have multiple meanings, you can't always demand that people only use the ones you like.
<br> <br>
Do you want them to rename it "Hypothetical Physics", too?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If scientists , science fans , and science writers do not use the words correctly how are we to defend the difference when creationists come around misusing the words ?
Oh get off it .
They are using the word correctly , they are just using it in the common sense , rather than the strictly technical sense .
And yes , here it means " hypothesis " .
Words can have multiple meanings , you ca n't always demand that people only use the ones you like .
Do you want them to rename it " Hypothetical Physics " , too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If scientists, science fans, and science writers do not use the words correctly how are we to defend the difference when creationists come around misusing the words?
Oh get off it.
They are using the word correctly, they are just using it in the common sense, rather than the strictly technical sense.
And yes, here it means "hypothesis".
Words can have multiple meanings, you can't always demand that people only use the ones you like.
Do you want them to rename it "Hypothetical Physics", too?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219886</id>
	<title>Re:I have a hypothesis about gravity.</title>
	<author>mbone</author>
	<datestamp>1259062740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Easily disproved. Take a gravimeter up in an elevator. In the growing theory, the gravitational force either stays constant or increases with altitude, while in real gravity (and this well within the powers of modern gravimeters and has been checked many times) the force decreases with altitude.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Easily disproved .
Take a gravimeter up in an elevator .
In the growing theory , the gravitational force either stays constant or increases with altitude , while in real gravity ( and this well within the powers of modern gravimeters and has been checked many times ) the force decreases with altitude .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Easily disproved.
Take a gravimeter up in an elevator.
In the growing theory, the gravitational force either stays constant or increases with altitude, while in real gravity (and this well within the powers of modern gravimeters and has been checked many times) the force decreases with altitude.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30223630</id>
	<title>This is already disproven</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257152640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TFA says that the dark matter is coming from interactions between gravitons and normal matter. However this http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ\_06297\_CHANDRA\_Dark\_Matter.html<br>clearly shows that dark matter is separate from normal matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA says that the dark matter is coming from interactions between gravitons and normal matter .
However this http : //www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ \ _06297 \ _CHANDRA \ _Dark \ _Matter.htmlclearly shows that dark matter is separate from normal matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA says that the dark matter is coming from interactions between gravitons and normal matter.
However this http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ\_06297\_CHANDRA\_Dark\_Matter.htmlclearly shows that dark matter is separate from normal matter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220882</id>
	<title>Long live Newton!</title>
	<author>ascari</author>
	<datestamp>1259067720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>New theory my ass. Separation of time and space was the norm before Einstein came and confused the whole thing. Maybe it's a relatively new theory?</htmltext>
<tokenext>New theory my ass .
Separation of time and space was the norm before Einstein came and confused the whole thing .
Maybe it 's a relatively new theory ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>New theory my ass.
Separation of time and space was the norm before Einstein came and confused the whole thing.
Maybe it's a relatively new theory?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220006</id>
	<title>Re:Just wondering out loud...</title>
	<author>rewt66</author>
	<datestamp>1259063340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, Einstein assumed that because of the null result of the Michaelson-Morley experiment.  He didn't just guess it out of the blue...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , Einstein assumed that because of the null result of the Michaelson-Morley experiment .
He did n't just guess it out of the blue.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, Einstein assumed that because of the null result of the Michaelson-Morley experiment.
He didn't just guess it out of the blue...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219332</id>
	<title>I have a hypothesis about gravity.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259060100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My hypothesis about gravity:</p><p>Everything is growing. We can't see anything growing, because our rulers and tapemesures and everything is growing. That's gravity: Just the growing earth pushing against your growing feet. Gravity at a distance is just objects growing towards each others (the void doesn't grow). Come to think of it. It's probably a bad hypothesis. It couldn't explain a slingshot effect, could it? Nevermind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My hypothesis about gravity : Everything is growing .
We ca n't see anything growing , because our rulers and tapemesures and everything is growing .
That 's gravity : Just the growing earth pushing against your growing feet .
Gravity at a distance is just objects growing towards each others ( the void does n't grow ) .
Come to think of it .
It 's probably a bad hypothesis .
It could n't explain a slingshot effect , could it ?
Nevermind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My hypothesis about gravity:Everything is growing.
We can't see anything growing, because our rulers and tapemesures and everything is growing.
That's gravity: Just the growing earth pushing against your growing feet.
Gravity at a distance is just objects growing towards each others (the void doesn't grow).
Come to think of it.
It's probably a bad hypothesis.
It couldn't explain a slingshot effect, could it?
Nevermind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30228554</id>
	<title>Re:And FTL, too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257190020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course not, to do that you have to slingshot around the sun. Of course, if you succeed you have to spend a great deal of time looking for the nuclear wessels before you can go home...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course not , to do that you have to slingshot around the sun .
Of course , if you succeed you have to spend a great deal of time looking for the nuclear wessels before you can go home.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course not, to do that you have to slingshot around the sun.
Of course, if you succeed you have to spend a great deal of time looking for the nuclear wessels before you can go home...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219262</id>
	<title>Laws of physics breaking down?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259059800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Others have made even bolder claims for Hoava gravity, especially when it comes to explaining cosmic conundrums such as the singularity of the big bang, where the laws of physics break down".</p><p>I wish people would quit saying this.  The laws of physics don't break down, just our understanding of them. Physics knows perfectly well what its up to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Others have made even bolder claims for Hoava gravity , especially when it comes to explaining cosmic conundrums such as the singularity of the big bang , where the laws of physics break down " .I wish people would quit saying this .
The laws of physics do n't break down , just our understanding of them .
Physics knows perfectly well what its up to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Others have made even bolder claims for Hoava gravity, especially when it comes to explaining cosmic conundrums such as the singularity of the big bang, where the laws of physics break down".I wish people would quit saying this.
The laws of physics don't break down, just our understanding of them.
Physics knows perfectly well what its up to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219632</id>
	<title>Re:Ow!</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1259061540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nah, don't worry. In a few years it'll all be glommed together again as space-time-matter-energy with one spiffy equation to rule them all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nah , do n't worry .
In a few years it 'll all be glommed together again as space-time-matter-energy with one spiffy equation to rule them all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nah, don't worry.
In a few years it'll all be glommed together again as space-time-matter-energy with one spiffy equation to rule them all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219342</id>
	<title>But does it also predict</title>
	<author>asdf7890</author>
	<datestamp>1259060160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>But does it also predict that time is an illusion, lunch-time doubly so? If not then there is still room for a more refined theory.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But does it also predict that time is an illusion , lunch-time doubly so ?
If not then there is still room for a more refined theory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But does it also predict that time is an illusion, lunch-time doubly so?
If not then there is still room for a more refined theory.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219208</id>
	<title>Re:Theory or Hypothesis?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259059560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And, the interchanging of hypothesis and theory by scientific magazines is a bad thing. If scientists, science fans, and science writers do not use the words correctly how are we to defend the difference when creationists come around misusing the words?</p></div><p>By not falling into the word-games trap.  Language evolves.  Letting someone play gotcha on definitions instead of ideas, insights and evidence means you're battling on shifting terrain.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And , the interchanging of hypothesis and theory by scientific magazines is a bad thing .
If scientists , science fans , and science writers do not use the words correctly how are we to defend the difference when creationists come around misusing the words ? By not falling into the word-games trap .
Language evolves .
Letting someone play gotcha on definitions instead of ideas , insights and evidence means you 're battling on shifting terrain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And, the interchanging of hypothesis and theory by scientific magazines is a bad thing.
If scientists, science fans, and science writers do not use the words correctly how are we to defend the difference when creationists come around misusing the words?By not falling into the word-games trap.
Language evolves.
Letting someone play gotcha on definitions instead of ideas, insights and evidence means you're battling on shifting terrain.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30225728</id>
	<title>From Where?</title>
	<author>Phoghat</author>
	<datestamp>1257176100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"If Hoava gravity is true, argues cosmologist Robert Brandenberger of McGill University in a paper published in the August Physical Review D, then the universe didn&rsquo;t bang&mdash;it bounced. &ldquo;A universe filled with matter will contract down to a small&mdash;but finite&mdash;size and then bounce out again,"</i>
<p>OK if it bounced, where did it bounce from?
</p><p>Interesting article to say the least! I've never 'liked' dark matter or dark energy but there wasn't much else to hang your hat on when it came to some observations in the real world and the mathematical models to explain them. I hope this proves out in the end because I think it will be a whole lot easier to prove then trying to prove dark matter.
Sorry dark matter researchers, but don't loose hope, after all it's still a theory and I'm sure the underground research will yield some interesting results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If Hoava gravity is true , argues cosmologist Robert Brandenberger of McGill University in a paper published in the August Physical Review D , then the universe didn    t bang    it bounced .
   A universe filled with matter will contract down to a small    but finite    size and then bounce out again , " OK if it bounced , where did it bounce from ?
Interesting article to say the least !
I 've never 'liked ' dark matter or dark energy but there was n't much else to hang your hat on when it came to some observations in the real world and the mathematical models to explain them .
I hope this proves out in the end because I think it will be a whole lot easier to prove then trying to prove dark matter .
Sorry dark matter researchers , but do n't loose hope , after all it 's still a theory and I 'm sure the underground research will yield some interesting results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If Hoava gravity is true, argues cosmologist Robert Brandenberger of McGill University in a paper published in the August Physical Review D, then the universe didn’t bang—it bounced.
“A universe filled with matter will contract down to a small—but finite—size and then bounce out again,"
OK if it bounced, where did it bounce from?
Interesting article to say the least!
I've never 'liked' dark matter or dark energy but there wasn't much else to hang your hat on when it came to some observations in the real world and the mathematical models to explain them.
I hope this proves out in the end because I think it will be a whole lot easier to prove then trying to prove dark matter.
Sorry dark matter researchers, but don't loose hope, after all it's still a theory and I'm sure the underground research will yield some interesting results.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30243282</id>
	<title>Wow.  So out there.</title>
	<author>mshurpik</author>
	<datestamp>1259352900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I read this article several times looking for at least one sentence that made sense and didn't find one.
<br> <br>
General rule of physics, if you can't explain your theory, then it's wrong.  Because there isn't one.
<br> <br>
Big Bounce?  WHAT THE FUCK.  I could get a better creation theory by going to church.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read this article several times looking for at least one sentence that made sense and did n't find one .
General rule of physics , if you ca n't explain your theory , then it 's wrong .
Because there is n't one .
Big Bounce ?
WHAT THE FUCK .
I could get a better creation theory by going to church .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read this article several times looking for at least one sentence that made sense and didn't find one.
General rule of physics, if you can't explain your theory, then it's wrong.
Because there isn't one.
Big Bounce?
WHAT THE FUCK.
I could get a better creation theory by going to church.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218846</id>
	<title>Theory or Hypothesis?</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1259057940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds to me like this is just an hypothesis as there doesn't appear to much experimental evidence supporting it. This is an extraordinary claim and so need extraordinary proof.</p><p>And, the interchanging of hypothesis and theory by scientific magazines is a bad thing. If scientists, science fans, and science writers do not use the words correctly how are we to defend the difference when creationists come around misusing the words?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds to me like this is just an hypothesis as there does n't appear to much experimental evidence supporting it .
This is an extraordinary claim and so need extraordinary proof.And , the interchanging of hypothesis and theory by scientific magazines is a bad thing .
If scientists , science fans , and science writers do not use the words correctly how are we to defend the difference when creationists come around misusing the words ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds to me like this is just an hypothesis as there doesn't appear to much experimental evidence supporting it.
This is an extraordinary claim and so need extraordinary proof.And, the interchanging of hypothesis and theory by scientific magazines is a bad thing.
If scientists, science fans, and science writers do not use the words correctly how are we to defend the difference when creationists come around misusing the words?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220254</id>
	<title>Re:Not again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259064420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Same as with the Highlander.  But I digress.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Same as with the Highlander .
But I digress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same as with the Highlander.
But I digress.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30221042</id>
	<title>Gavity propogates at the speed of light</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259068740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not a scientics but if I recall correctly gravity propogates at the speed of light? Which isn't spooky.  Einsteins "Spooky Action at a distance" quote is referring to something different in quantum mechanics.</p><p>http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/kenny/papers/bell.html</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a scientics but if I recall correctly gravity propogates at the speed of light ?
Which is n't spooky .
Einsteins " Spooky Action at a distance " quote is referring to something different in quantum mechanics.http : //www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/kenny/papers/bell.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a scientics but if I recall correctly gravity propogates at the speed of light?
Which isn't spooky.
Einsteins "Spooky Action at a distance" quote is referring to something different in quantum mechanics.http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/kenny/papers/bell.html
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218730</id>
	<title>Re:Not again</title>
	<author>cthulu\_mt</author>
	<datestamp>1259057580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How is this bad?
<br> <br>
It seems like science doing it's thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this bad ?
It seems like science doing it 's thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this bad?
It seems like science doing it's thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219260</id>
	<title>Re:And FTL, too</title>
	<author>megamerican</author>
	<datestamp>1259059800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Remember, faster than light means time travel (&amp;, thus, causality violations), so I can understand caution. But, I bet in reality his theory had more serious problems.</p></div><p>If his theory is correct and space and time are decoupled then faster than light travel wouldn't allow you to travel back in time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember , faster than light means time travel ( &amp; , thus , causality violations ) , so I can understand caution .
But , I bet in reality his theory had more serious problems.If his theory is correct and space and time are decoupled then faster than light travel would n't allow you to travel back in time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember, faster than light means time travel (&amp;, thus, causality violations), so I can understand caution.
But, I bet in reality his theory had more serious problems.If his theory is correct and space and time are decoupled then faster than light travel wouldn't allow you to travel back in time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220240</id>
	<title>Re:Not again</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1259064300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All faith is blind. <br>'Faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.'</p><p>And just because some may swing one way or the other within either group doesn't show anything. At its root religions are unchanging, or at least the Judeo-Christian ones are meant to be. At sciences base we strive for changing, evolving viewpoints.</p><blockquote><div><p>Whether or not you apply a god to it doesn't matter, because in the end, past what our science is able to tell us, everything comes down to a belief.</p></div> </blockquote><p>No, that is a stupid terrible meme. First off the axioms of science are things like 'a + b = b + a', compared to there is a God and history as described in a multiple 1000page book. Not the \% of which is axiom, In fact the whole christian belief system IS a huge axiom, individuals get to add theories on top that's all. </p><p>As well, science is made of 'best guesses so far'. That 'so far' stipulation means you don't actually have faith in anything merely knowledge of a best guess. Scientists/Philosophers haven't proven with any great certainty that we can know anything so all we CAN do is make guesses. The only absolute proofs we make do use givens, so we can prove things withing certain constructs. Like, we can PROVE things in math, but it is an artificial device. That isn't the same as universal truths. All we get there are good guesses.</p><p>Do we act on those guesses? Certainly, much like you'd call a friend's cell before his house. You don't KNOW he is there, simply that is the best educated guess you can make at the moment. The idea that people EVER need to make a leap of faith is total BS.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All faith is blind .
'Faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence .
'And just because some may swing one way or the other within either group does n't show anything .
At its root religions are unchanging , or at least the Judeo-Christian ones are meant to be .
At sciences base we strive for changing , evolving viewpoints.Whether or not you apply a god to it does n't matter , because in the end , past what our science is able to tell us , everything comes down to a belief .
No , that is a stupid terrible meme .
First off the axioms of science are things like 'a + b = b + a ' , compared to there is a God and history as described in a multiple 1000page book .
Not the \ % of which is axiom , In fact the whole christian belief system IS a huge axiom , individuals get to add theories on top that 's all .
As well , science is made of 'best guesses so far' .
That 'so far ' stipulation means you do n't actually have faith in anything merely knowledge of a best guess .
Scientists/Philosophers have n't proven with any great certainty that we can know anything so all we CAN do is make guesses .
The only absolute proofs we make do use givens , so we can prove things withing certain constructs .
Like , we can PROVE things in math , but it is an artificial device .
That is n't the same as universal truths .
All we get there are good guesses.Do we act on those guesses ?
Certainly , much like you 'd call a friend 's cell before his house .
You do n't KNOW he is there , simply that is the best educated guess you can make at the moment .
The idea that people EVER need to make a leap of faith is total BS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All faith is blind.
'Faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
'And just because some may swing one way or the other within either group doesn't show anything.
At its root religions are unchanging, or at least the Judeo-Christian ones are meant to be.
At sciences base we strive for changing, evolving viewpoints.Whether or not you apply a god to it doesn't matter, because in the end, past what our science is able to tell us, everything comes down to a belief.
No, that is a stupid terrible meme.
First off the axioms of science are things like 'a + b = b + a', compared to there is a God and history as described in a multiple 1000page book.
Not the \% of which is axiom, In fact the whole christian belief system IS a huge axiom, individuals get to add theories on top that's all.
As well, science is made of 'best guesses so far'.
That 'so far' stipulation means you don't actually have faith in anything merely knowledge of a best guess.
Scientists/Philosophers haven't proven with any great certainty that we can know anything so all we CAN do is make guesses.
The only absolute proofs we make do use givens, so we can prove things withing certain constructs.
Like, we can PROVE things in math, but it is an artificial device.
That isn't the same as universal truths.
All we get there are good guesses.Do we act on those guesses?
Certainly, much like you'd call a friend's cell before his house.
You don't KNOW he is there, simply that is the best educated guess you can make at the moment.
The idea that people EVER need to make a leap of faith is total BS.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219666</id>
	<title>Re:I have a hypothesis about gravity.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259061660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes the idea that things appear to be growing is a very interesting hypothesis.<br>Maybe we're shrinking, and so are the measuring tapes.<br>And the apparent uniform expansion is not at all like raisin bread rising, but more like raisins becoming mustard seeds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes the idea that things appear to be growing is a very interesting hypothesis.Maybe we 're shrinking , and so are the measuring tapes.And the apparent uniform expansion is not at all like raisin bread rising , but more like raisins becoming mustard seeds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes the idea that things appear to be growing is a very interesting hypothesis.Maybe we're shrinking, and so are the measuring tapes.And the apparent uniform expansion is not at all like raisin bread rising, but more like raisins becoming mustard seeds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219376</id>
	<title>Re:And FTL, too</title>
	<author>HBoar</author>
	<datestamp>1259060280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think by decoupling space and time, it may remove the time travel part of FTL travel....</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think by decoupling space and time , it may remove the time travel part of FTL travel... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think by decoupling space and time, it may remove the time travel part of FTL travel....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220264</id>
	<title>Not news..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259064420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Big Bounce has been previously documented here: http://www.bigtitpatrol.com/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Big Bounce has been previously documented here : http : //www.bigtitpatrol.com/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Big Bounce has been previously documented here: http://www.bigtitpatrol.com/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219056</id>
	<title>Re:And FTL, too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259058780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Communicating faster than the speed of light? Isn't that straight out of Science Fiction?</p></div><p>Not that I'm aware of - I watch and read a *lot* of science fiction, and I've never <i>ever</i> seen or read anything that showed communicating faster than the speed of light.</p><p>I'm pretty sure that nobody has ever though of such a thing before.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Communicating faster than the speed of light ?
Is n't that straight out of Science Fiction ? Not that I 'm aware of - I watch and read a * lot * of science fiction , and I 've never ever seen or read anything that showed communicating faster than the speed of light.I 'm pretty sure that nobody has ever though of such a thing before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Communicating faster than the speed of light?
Isn't that straight out of Science Fiction?Not that I'm aware of - I watch and read a *lot* of science fiction, and I've never ever seen or read anything that showed communicating faster than the speed of light.I'm pretty sure that nobody has ever though of such a thing before.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30223510</id>
	<title>Re:And FTL, too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257193740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Time doesn't exist... If you traveled faster than light, say in the opposite direction of a photon, you'd still arrive after the photon was emitted, if you traveled with infinite speed starting from the moment of the emission, you'd still arrive at the moment of emission, not before (or in this case an infinite amount of time before the universe (and time) existed...). Whatever makes more sense to you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time does n't exist... If you traveled faster than light , say in the opposite direction of a photon , you 'd still arrive after the photon was emitted , if you traveled with infinite speed starting from the moment of the emission , you 'd still arrive at the moment of emission , not before ( or in this case an infinite amount of time before the universe ( and time ) existed... ) .
Whatever makes more sense to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time doesn't exist... If you traveled faster than light, say in the opposite direction of a photon, you'd still arrive after the photon was emitted, if you traveled with infinite speed starting from the moment of the emission, you'd still arrive at the moment of emission, not before (or in this case an infinite amount of time before the universe (and time) existed...).
Whatever makes more sense to you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219462</id>
	<title>Re:Not again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259060760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Recently, paradigms in physics have been interesting in this respect as the new perfectly subsume the prior in their limits. I am not sure that this is a tautology of science, but it is an elegant means of progression.</i></p><p>Look up the notion of a logical theory.  A "theory" in this sense is a set of sentences that is closed under logical implication.  As it happens, every coherent scientific theory is a logical theory (because of the scientific method).  In particular, this means that any evidence that contradicts even the logical consequences of a theory must invalidates at least part of the theory.</p><p>Superstring theory is an interesting case to discuss with respect to this case.  It is not a scientific theory in the sense Popper.  Basically, physicists took some important and fundamental scientific theories, and combined their theories.  They noticed that this new, larger theory could be described using formulae simpler than the original formulae.  But the theories, as logical theories, are equivalent by construction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Recently , paradigms in physics have been interesting in this respect as the new perfectly subsume the prior in their limits .
I am not sure that this is a tautology of science , but it is an elegant means of progression.Look up the notion of a logical theory .
A " theory " in this sense is a set of sentences that is closed under logical implication .
As it happens , every coherent scientific theory is a logical theory ( because of the scientific method ) .
In particular , this means that any evidence that contradicts even the logical consequences of a theory must invalidates at least part of the theory.Superstring theory is an interesting case to discuss with respect to this case .
It is not a scientific theory in the sense Popper .
Basically , physicists took some important and fundamental scientific theories , and combined their theories .
They noticed that this new , larger theory could be described using formulae simpler than the original formulae .
But the theories , as logical theories , are equivalent by construction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Recently, paradigms in physics have been interesting in this respect as the new perfectly subsume the prior in their limits.
I am not sure that this is a tautology of science, but it is an elegant means of progression.Look up the notion of a logical theory.
A "theory" in this sense is a set of sentences that is closed under logical implication.
As it happens, every coherent scientific theory is a logical theory (because of the scientific method).
In particular, this means that any evidence that contradicts even the logical consequences of a theory must invalidates at least part of the theory.Superstring theory is an interesting case to discuss with respect to this case.
It is not a scientific theory in the sense Popper.
Basically, physicists took some important and fundamental scientific theories, and combined their theories.
They noticed that this new, larger theory could be described using formulae simpler than the original formulae.
But the theories, as logical theories, are equivalent by construction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218764</id>
	<title>ZZZTTT !</title>
	<author>mbone</author>
	<datestamp>1259057640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> it fits some observations better than Einstein's or Newton's solutions. It better predicts the movement of the planets (in an idealized case) </i></p><p>Oh. In an idealized case. Imaginary physics. Of course, in the actual case, it does not (it requires patching to allow for non-spherical planets).</p><p>At any rate, there are at present no known relativistic measurements that are not consistent with General Relativity, so I am not clear where the "better than" comes from.</p><p>And, from the standpoint of a General Relativist, the stubborn desire of the particle physicists to have a flat spacetime at high enough energies, no matter what, seems, well, quaint.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it fits some observations better than Einstein 's or Newton 's solutions .
It better predicts the movement of the planets ( in an idealized case ) Oh .
In an idealized case .
Imaginary physics .
Of course , in the actual case , it does not ( it requires patching to allow for non-spherical planets ) .At any rate , there are at present no known relativistic measurements that are not consistent with General Relativity , so I am not clear where the " better than " comes from.And , from the standpoint of a General Relativist , the stubborn desire of the particle physicists to have a flat spacetime at high enough energies , no matter what , seems , well , quaint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> it fits some observations better than Einstein's or Newton's solutions.
It better predicts the movement of the planets (in an idealized case) Oh.
In an idealized case.
Imaginary physics.
Of course, in the actual case, it does not (it requires patching to allow for non-spherical planets).At any rate, there are at present no known relativistic measurements that are not consistent with General Relativity, so I am not clear where the "better than" comes from.And, from the standpoint of a General Relativist, the stubborn desire of the particle physicists to have a flat spacetime at high enough energies, no matter what, seems, well, quaint.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220762</id>
	<title>Re:some modest hypotheses</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1259066940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can your electric universe explain these results yet:</p><p><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/Firas\_spectrum.jpg/724px-Firas\_spectrum.jpg" title="wikimedia.org">http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/Firas\_spectrum.jpg/724px-Firas\_spectrum.jpg</a> [wikimedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can your electric universe explain these results yet : http : //upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/Firas \ _spectrum.jpg/724px-Firas \ _spectrum.jpg [ wikimedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can your electric universe explain these results yet:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/Firas\_spectrum.jpg/724px-Firas\_spectrum.jpg [wikimedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219604</id>
	<title>Re:String Theory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259061420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>String Theory has a lot to do with math, but absolutely nothing to do with science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>String Theory has a lot to do with math , but absolutely nothing to do with science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>String Theory has a lot to do with math, but absolutely nothing to do with science.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219406</id>
	<title>Re:Just wondering out loud...</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1259060460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The reason for Einstein's initial assumption is that we have never to date observed anything which has moved faster than light. Then again, would we know such a thing if we observed it, and have we actively looked for such a thing? If so, how have we looked?</p></div><p>We have looked a lot for such things. For current purposes, since I gather faster than light signals are supposed to be a manifestation of higher energies, high energy physics is the best place to have noticed such phenomena. Basically, they slam particles together at high energies and look at the resulting spray. If anything travels faster than the speed of light, it'll create an anomaly in the resulting data. Even a few events out of trillions are enough to get noticed. Personally, I think high energy collisions are a very efficient way to look for these things since you cover a lot of possibilities at once.<br> <br>

There's also the matter of particle floods from the initial collapse of supernovas and gamma ray bursts. These are events with a very narrow window of activity and in which we see no change in the arrival of various particles (eg, gamma rays and neutrinos, for example).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason for Einstein 's initial assumption is that we have never to date observed anything which has moved faster than light .
Then again , would we know such a thing if we observed it , and have we actively looked for such a thing ?
If so , how have we looked ? We have looked a lot for such things .
For current purposes , since I gather faster than light signals are supposed to be a manifestation of higher energies , high energy physics is the best place to have noticed such phenomena .
Basically , they slam particles together at high energies and look at the resulting spray .
If anything travels faster than the speed of light , it 'll create an anomaly in the resulting data .
Even a few events out of trillions are enough to get noticed .
Personally , I think high energy collisions are a very efficient way to look for these things since you cover a lot of possibilities at once .
There 's also the matter of particle floods from the initial collapse of supernovas and gamma ray bursts .
These are events with a very narrow window of activity and in which we see no change in the arrival of various particles ( eg , gamma rays and neutrinos , for example ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason for Einstein's initial assumption is that we have never to date observed anything which has moved faster than light.
Then again, would we know such a thing if we observed it, and have we actively looked for such a thing?
If so, how have we looked?We have looked a lot for such things.
For current purposes, since I gather faster than light signals are supposed to be a manifestation of higher energies, high energy physics is the best place to have noticed such phenomena.
Basically, they slam particles together at high energies and look at the resulting spray.
If anything travels faster than the speed of light, it'll create an anomaly in the resulting data.
Even a few events out of trillions are enough to get noticed.
Personally, I think high energy collisions are a very efficient way to look for these things since you cover a lot of possibilities at once.
There's also the matter of particle floods from the initial collapse of supernovas and gamma ray bursts.
These are events with a very narrow window of activity and in which we see no change in the arrival of various particles (eg, gamma rays and neutrinos, for example).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30224026</id>
	<title>Re:Not again</title>
	<author>roman\_mir</author>
	<datestamp>1257157860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>'a + b = b + a'</p></div><p> - commutativity is provable, this is a base, not an assumption, it has to be known, not believed in.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'a + b = b + a ' - commutativity is provable , this is a base , not an assumption , it has to be known , not believed in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'a + b = b + a' - commutativity is provable, this is a base, not an assumption, it has to be known, not believed in.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30222142</id>
	<title>YOU ARE ALL WRONG.</title>
	<author>Ralph Spoilsport</author>
	<datestamp>1259077200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The universe is a giant plutonium atom. Archimedes told me so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The universe is a giant plutonium atom .
Archimedes told me so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The universe is a giant plutonium atom.
Archimedes told me so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220020</id>
	<title>Re:Not again</title>
	<author>dwiget001</author>
	<datestamp>1259063340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, in the sense of software programming, the new theories have to be -- backwards compatible! Yeah!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , in the sense of software programming , the new theories have to be -- backwards compatible !
Yeah !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, in the sense of software programming, the new theories have to be -- backwards compatible!
Yeah!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218682</id>
	<title>Much more mathematical detail...</title>
	<author>Lord Grey</author>
	<datestamp>1259057280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>... in a <a href="http://www.ksc.re.kr/kcnr/Presentations/30thGNR/30thGNR\_MIPark.pdf" title="ksc.re.kr">presentation</a> [ksc.re.kr] from the 30th Workshop on Gravitation and Numerical Relativity at Jungwon University.  It's a PDF version of a PowerPoint deck, so it's not exactly easy to read.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... in a presentation [ ksc.re.kr ] from the 30th Workshop on Gravitation and Numerical Relativity at Jungwon University .
It 's a PDF version of a PowerPoint deck , so it 's not exactly easy to read .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... in a presentation [ksc.re.kr] from the 30th Workshop on Gravitation and Numerical Relativity at Jungwon University.
It's a PDF version of a PowerPoint deck, so it's not exactly easy to read.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220030</id>
	<title>Re:I have a hypothesis about gravity.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259063400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But it does explain what is happening to my waist line quite well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But it does explain what is happening to my waist line quite well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But it does explain what is happening to my waist line quite well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219222</id>
	<title>Re:String Theory</title>
	<author>lugannerd</author>
	<datestamp>1259059680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its not string theory anymore - Its evovled to M theory and a bunch of brains.....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its not string theory anymore - Its evovled to M theory and a bunch of brains.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its not string theory anymore - Its evovled to M theory and a bunch of brains.....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218808</id>
	<title>The Original Article is here....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259057820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.3775" title="arxiv.org" rel="nofollow">Quantum Gravity at a Lifshitz Point</a> [arxiv.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quantum Gravity at a Lifshitz Point [ arxiv.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quantum Gravity at a Lifshitz Point [arxiv.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218534</id>
	<title>Not again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259056620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Every few years, there is yet another theory that claims to be better suited for our models than Einstein's. Then they realize they overlooked something and find Einstein's idea fit better than ever.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every few years , there is yet another theory that claims to be better suited for our models than Einstein 's .
Then they realize they overlooked something and find Einstein 's idea fit better than ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every few years, there is yet another theory that claims to be better suited for our models than Einstein's.
Then they realize they overlooked something and find Einstein's idea fit better than ever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219232</id>
	<title>Gosh darnit.  Two guys I'd like to do my PhD under</title>
	<author>darkharlequin</author>
	<datestamp>1259059740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>In one day, and they are both in California.  I am stuck here in New Jersey.  New Jersey is Hell.  When people die, they don't go under the ground, they just pop up somewhere in Newark.  See, us citizens of New Jersey are immortal because if we are killed, we just pop up back again in New Jersey.  Its just really hard to navigate around Newark, so that's why you don't see us again..................</htmltext>
<tokenext>In one day , and they are both in California .
I am stuck here in New Jersey .
New Jersey is Hell .
When people die , they do n't go under the ground , they just pop up somewhere in Newark .
See , us citizens of New Jersey are immortal because if we are killed , we just pop up back again in New Jersey .
Its just really hard to navigate around Newark , so that 's why you do n't see us again................. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In one day, and they are both in California.
I am stuck here in New Jersey.
New Jersey is Hell.
When people die, they don't go under the ground, they just pop up somewhere in Newark.
See, us citizens of New Jersey are immortal because if we are killed, we just pop up back again in New Jersey.
Its just really hard to navigate around Newark, so that's why you don't see us again..................</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220888</id>
	<title>Re:Not again</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1259067720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Recently, paradigms in physics have been interesting in this respect as the new perfectly subsume the prior in their limits. I am not sure that this is a tautology of science, but it is an elegant means of progression.</p></div></blockquote><p>It seems to be, if not quite a "tautology" in the sense of true-by-definition, a fairly clear practical consequence of the scientific method. Since to be accepted as a scientific <i>theory</i> explaining behavior in some domain, a <i>hypothesis</i> must propose a falsifiable predictive models that fails efforts to falsify it, it necessarily must correctly predict observed behavior in some domain.</p><p>In order to displace such a theory, a new hypothesis must explain the behavior explained by the first theory as well as explaining some behavior that the old theory <i>failed</i> to explain. Consequently, while the mechanisms proposed may be different, insofar as a mathematical model is proposed, it pretty much has to reduce to either something identical to the old one or something indistinguishable from it within the limits of the accuracy of the test of the old theory, within the domain in which the old theory was successful.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Recently , paradigms in physics have been interesting in this respect as the new perfectly subsume the prior in their limits .
I am not sure that this is a tautology of science , but it is an elegant means of progression.It seems to be , if not quite a " tautology " in the sense of true-by-definition , a fairly clear practical consequence of the scientific method .
Since to be accepted as a scientific theory explaining behavior in some domain , a hypothesis must propose a falsifiable predictive models that fails efforts to falsify it , it necessarily must correctly predict observed behavior in some domain.In order to displace such a theory , a new hypothesis must explain the behavior explained by the first theory as well as explaining some behavior that the old theory failed to explain .
Consequently , while the mechanisms proposed may be different , insofar as a mathematical model is proposed , it pretty much has to reduce to either something identical to the old one or something indistinguishable from it within the limits of the accuracy of the test of the old theory , within the domain in which the old theory was successful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Recently, paradigms in physics have been interesting in this respect as the new perfectly subsume the prior in their limits.
I am not sure that this is a tautology of science, but it is an elegant means of progression.It seems to be, if not quite a "tautology" in the sense of true-by-definition, a fairly clear practical consequence of the scientific method.
Since to be accepted as a scientific theory explaining behavior in some domain, a hypothesis must propose a falsifiable predictive models that fails efforts to falsify it, it necessarily must correctly predict observed behavior in some domain.In order to displace such a theory, a new hypothesis must explain the behavior explained by the first theory as well as explaining some behavior that the old theory failed to explain.
Consequently, while the mechanisms proposed may be different, insofar as a mathematical model is proposed, it pretty much has to reduce to either something identical to the old one or something indistinguishable from it within the limits of the accuracy of the test of the old theory, within the domain in which the old theory was successful.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30228444</id>
	<title>big bang?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257189480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought we were calling it the Horrendous Space Kablooie now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought we were calling it the Horrendous Space Kablooie now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought we were calling it the Horrendous Space Kablooie now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30222334</id>
	<title>Re:Not again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259078880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm really going to destroy my karma here, but I think that diagram isn't correct.  I would argue that personal faith is almost identical to the path of the science in the diagram.  There are those of us out there who hold beliefs but aren't afraid that our beliefs might be changed by what evidence we are presented with.  Faith will always be there for the things we do not have the tools to understand.  Whether or not you apply a god to it doesn't matter, because in the end, past what our science is able to tell us, everything comes down to a belief.</p><p>The problem with faith is when it becomes blind faith.  Some people think what they've found is the be all end all and refuse to search anymore.  It's not specific to the religious either.  If you notice, there are "science" folk in here mocking this new theory because it contradicts the old one. Think about this next time you want to take a swing at someone who holds faith.</p></div><p>Actually you are missing the entire point of religion, but don't feel too bad, most religious people make the same mistake.</p><p>I don't remember which one he was, but there was a Cardinal in the Catholic church who had a great statement regarding science vs. god, which was "The Bible tells us how to go to Heaven, it does not tell us how Heaven goes." His point was that all religion and doctrine is allegory, none of it was ever intended to literally represent the material world, physics, etc. This was actually the prevailing belief in Judaism and Christianity until relatively recently when people decided that The Bible was The Final Word on everything. And when you attempt to build a world model on allegorical tales they tend to start to disagree pretty quickly.</p><p>So to sum it up, there is no reason why religion can not co-exist with Science. The point of religion is not to disprove science or claim there's a big guy wandering around who can defy all the "laws" of science, just as the entire point of science has absolutely nothing to do with proving/disproving the existence of God. In fact, the only way that religion could ever "win" such a debate is for such a God to show up and demonstrate proof, and the only way for science to "win" such debate would be to prove the existence of God (since you can't really ultimately disprove God with science). Sadly it seems the majority of those one either side utterly fail to grasp this concept, and just end up looking like a bunch of squabbling children.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm really going to destroy my karma here , but I think that diagram is n't correct .
I would argue that personal faith is almost identical to the path of the science in the diagram .
There are those of us out there who hold beliefs but are n't afraid that our beliefs might be changed by what evidence we are presented with .
Faith will always be there for the things we do not have the tools to understand .
Whether or not you apply a god to it does n't matter , because in the end , past what our science is able to tell us , everything comes down to a belief.The problem with faith is when it becomes blind faith .
Some people think what they 've found is the be all end all and refuse to search anymore .
It 's not specific to the religious either .
If you notice , there are " science " folk in here mocking this new theory because it contradicts the old one .
Think about this next time you want to take a swing at someone who holds faith.Actually you are missing the entire point of religion , but do n't feel too bad , most religious people make the same mistake.I do n't remember which one he was , but there was a Cardinal in the Catholic church who had a great statement regarding science vs. god , which was " The Bible tells us how to go to Heaven , it does not tell us how Heaven goes .
" His point was that all religion and doctrine is allegory , none of it was ever intended to literally represent the material world , physics , etc .
This was actually the prevailing belief in Judaism and Christianity until relatively recently when people decided that The Bible was The Final Word on everything .
And when you attempt to build a world model on allegorical tales they tend to start to disagree pretty quickly.So to sum it up , there is no reason why religion can not co-exist with Science .
The point of religion is not to disprove science or claim there 's a big guy wandering around who can defy all the " laws " of science , just as the entire point of science has absolutely nothing to do with proving/disproving the existence of God .
In fact , the only way that religion could ever " win " such a debate is for such a God to show up and demonstrate proof , and the only way for science to " win " such debate would be to prove the existence of God ( since you ca n't really ultimately disprove God with science ) .
Sadly it seems the majority of those one either side utterly fail to grasp this concept , and just end up looking like a bunch of squabbling children .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm really going to destroy my karma here, but I think that diagram isn't correct.
I would argue that personal faith is almost identical to the path of the science in the diagram.
There are those of us out there who hold beliefs but aren't afraid that our beliefs might be changed by what evidence we are presented with.
Faith will always be there for the things we do not have the tools to understand.
Whether or not you apply a god to it doesn't matter, because in the end, past what our science is able to tell us, everything comes down to a belief.The problem with faith is when it becomes blind faith.
Some people think what they've found is the be all end all and refuse to search anymore.
It's not specific to the religious either.
If you notice, there are "science" folk in here mocking this new theory because it contradicts the old one.
Think about this next time you want to take a swing at someone who holds faith.Actually you are missing the entire point of religion, but don't feel too bad, most religious people make the same mistake.I don't remember which one he was, but there was a Cardinal in the Catholic church who had a great statement regarding science vs. god, which was "The Bible tells us how to go to Heaven, it does not tell us how Heaven goes.
" His point was that all religion and doctrine is allegory, none of it was ever intended to literally represent the material world, physics, etc.
This was actually the prevailing belief in Judaism and Christianity until relatively recently when people decided that The Bible was The Final Word on everything.
And when you attempt to build a world model on allegorical tales they tend to start to disagree pretty quickly.So to sum it up, there is no reason why religion can not co-exist with Science.
The point of religion is not to disprove science or claim there's a big guy wandering around who can defy all the "laws" of science, just as the entire point of science has absolutely nothing to do with proving/disproving the existence of God.
In fact, the only way that religion could ever "win" such a debate is for such a God to show up and demonstrate proof, and the only way for science to "win" such debate would be to prove the existence of God (since you can't really ultimately disprove God with science).
Sadly it seems the majority of those one either side utterly fail to grasp this concept, and just end up looking like a bunch of squabbling children.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219624</id>
	<title>Re:Just wondering out loud...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259061540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry, but this is factually inaccurate and gets modded up and that may piss of your random anonymous coward. Einstein never assumed "nothing can go faster than light". His assumptions were</p><p>(1) The laws of physics are the same for all observers moving at a constant speed in a straight light ('inertial observers').<br>(2) All observers measure the same speed of light.</p><p>You can if you want regard (2) as redundant since electromagnetism implies that the speed of light is independent of the observer but both<br>postulates are traditionally made for emphasis.</p><p>From that you can \_derive\_ that no massive particle will ever reach the speed of light and that massless particles (e.g. photons) must necessarily<br>move at that speed. The reason for Einstein's assumption was certainly not that nothing had been observed going faster than the speed of light.<br>He made the assumption because it is an extremely reasonable assumption to make (and indeed in this respect) and because if you abandon this<br>assumption you must abandon electromagnetism entirely. Electromagnetism at that point had been extensively verified experimentally.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , but this is factually inaccurate and gets modded up and that may piss of your random anonymous coward .
Einstein never assumed " nothing can go faster than light " .
His assumptions were ( 1 ) The laws of physics are the same for all observers moving at a constant speed in a straight light ( 'inertial observers ' ) .
( 2 ) All observers measure the same speed of light.You can if you want regard ( 2 ) as redundant since electromagnetism implies that the speed of light is independent of the observer but bothpostulates are traditionally made for emphasis.From that you can \ _derive \ _ that no massive particle will ever reach the speed of light and that massless particles ( e.g .
photons ) must necessarilymove at that speed .
The reason for Einstein 's assumption was certainly not that nothing had been observed going faster than the speed of light.He made the assumption because it is an extremely reasonable assumption to make ( and indeed in this respect ) and because if you abandon thisassumption you must abandon electromagnetism entirely .
Electromagnetism at that point had been extensively verified experimentally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, but this is factually inaccurate and gets modded up and that may piss of your random anonymous coward.
Einstein never assumed "nothing can go faster than light".
His assumptions were(1) The laws of physics are the same for all observers moving at a constant speed in a straight light ('inertial observers').
(2) All observers measure the same speed of light.You can if you want regard (2) as redundant since electromagnetism implies that the speed of light is independent of the observer but bothpostulates are traditionally made for emphasis.From that you can \_derive\_ that no massive particle will ever reach the speed of light and that massless particles (e.g.
photons) must necessarilymove at that speed.
The reason for Einstein's assumption was certainly not that nothing had been observed going faster than the speed of light.He made the assumption because it is an extremely reasonable assumption to make (and indeed in this respect) and because if you abandon thisassumption you must abandon electromagnetism entirely.
Electromagnetism at that point had been extensively verified experimentally.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30224218</id>
	<title>Re:Spooky action at a distance?</title>
	<author>ogma</author>
	<datestamp>1257160020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A flawed, but illustrative example that should explain why this is so: imagine you have a friend who is flipping a coin... if it comes up heads, he writes an X on two sheets of paper, if it comes up tails, he writes a checkmark on both instead. Both are immediately sealed inside envelopes and mailed to opposites sides of the planet. If you open one letter and see an X, you instantly know the other has an X also. That doesn't require any communication.</p></div><p>Isn't that just the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden\_variable\_theory" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">'hidden variables'</a> [wikipedia.org] interpretation of quantum physics, which from my limited knowledge I think was eperimentally proven false?</p><p>From my understanding, there really is nothing in the envelope until you look inside it - that's what makes the in-sync states of the atoms, even when seperated by distances greater than c*t, 'spooky'. Communication may not be possible, but it is still very weird from our classical perspective.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A flawed , but illustrative example that should explain why this is so : imagine you have a friend who is flipping a coin... if it comes up heads , he writes an X on two sheets of paper , if it comes up tails , he writes a checkmark on both instead .
Both are immediately sealed inside envelopes and mailed to opposites sides of the planet .
If you open one letter and see an X , you instantly know the other has an X also .
That does n't require any communication.Is n't that just the 'hidden variables ' [ wikipedia.org ] interpretation of quantum physics , which from my limited knowledge I think was eperimentally proven false ? From my understanding , there really is nothing in the envelope until you look inside it - that 's what makes the in-sync states of the atoms , even when seperated by distances greater than c * t , 'spooky' .
Communication may not be possible , but it is still very weird from our classical perspective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A flawed, but illustrative example that should explain why this is so: imagine you have a friend who is flipping a coin... if it comes up heads, he writes an X on two sheets of paper, if it comes up tails, he writes a checkmark on both instead.
Both are immediately sealed inside envelopes and mailed to opposites sides of the planet.
If you open one letter and see an X, you instantly know the other has an X also.
That doesn't require any communication.Isn't that just the 'hidden variables' [wikipedia.org] interpretation of quantum physics, which from my limited knowledge I think was eperimentally proven false?From my understanding, there really is nothing in the envelope until you look inside it - that's what makes the in-sync states of the atoms, even when seperated by distances greater than c*t, 'spooky'.
Communication may not be possible, but it is still very weird from our classical perspective.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219772</id>
	<title>That's about frackin time...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259062140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only should it be cold obvious that time is merely an illusion for a conscious being with the trait of memory and only applicable as a mathematical derivative but that we only have 3 dimensions in the same sense which could be seen as a single dimension in which we exist. I'm not a published theoretical physicist nor am I claiming that his theories are accurate but it's a step in the right direction, less abstract, more concrete. On another note I don't know what I'm writing, had a couple too many shots of... something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only should it be cold obvious that time is merely an illusion for a conscious being with the trait of memory and only applicable as a mathematical derivative but that we only have 3 dimensions in the same sense which could be seen as a single dimension in which we exist .
I 'm not a published theoretical physicist nor am I claiming that his theories are accurate but it 's a step in the right direction , less abstract , more concrete .
On another note I do n't know what I 'm writing , had a couple too many shots of... something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only should it be cold obvious that time is merely an illusion for a conscious being with the trait of memory and only applicable as a mathematical derivative but that we only have 3 dimensions in the same sense which could be seen as a single dimension in which we exist.
I'm not a published theoretical physicist nor am I claiming that his theories are accurate but it's a step in the right direction, less abstract, more concrete.
On another note I don't know what I'm writing, had a couple too many shots of... something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30224284</id>
	<title>Re:And FTL, too</title>
	<author>theheadlessrabbit</author>
	<datestamp>1257160620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If his theory is correct and space and time are decoupled then faster than light travel wouldn't allow you to travel back in time.</p></div><p>even if you warped around a star?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If his theory is correct and space and time are decoupled then faster than light travel would n't allow you to travel back in time.even if you warped around a star ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If his theory is correct and space and time are decoupled then faster than light travel wouldn't allow you to travel back in time.even if you warped around a star?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30223126</id>
	<title>Re:Just Because...</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1259088120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"We should stop dismissing ideas of science simply because they don't fit with what we believe should happen."</i>
<br> <br>
Who's the "we" in your statement?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" We should stop dismissing ideas of science simply because they do n't fit with what we believe should happen .
" Who 's the " we " in your statement ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We should stop dismissing ideas of science simply because they don't fit with what we believe should happen.
"
 
Who's the "we" in your statement?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220154</id>
	<title>So is heat death in question then?</title>
	<author>jayhawk88</author>
	<datestamp>1259063880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>&ldquo;A universe filled with matter will contract down to a small&mdash;but finite&mdash;size and then bounce out again, giving us the expanding cosmos we see today,&rdquo; he says. Brandenberger&rsquo;s calculations show that ripples produced by the bounce match those already detected by satellites measuring the cosmic microwave background, and he is now looking for signatures that could distinguish the bounce from the big bang scenario.</i></p><p>Maybe I'm just missing something obvious, but my understanding is that current measurements/observations point to an ever expanding universe, that is doomed to end via heat death. This statement would seem to wildly contradict this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>   A universe filled with matter will contract down to a small    but finite    size and then bounce out again , giving us the expanding cosmos we see today ,    he says .
Brandenberger    s calculations show that ripples produced by the bounce match those already detected by satellites measuring the cosmic microwave background , and he is now looking for signatures that could distinguish the bounce from the big bang scenario.Maybe I 'm just missing something obvious , but my understanding is that current measurements/observations point to an ever expanding universe , that is doomed to end via heat death .
This statement would seem to wildly contradict this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>“A universe filled with matter will contract down to a small—but finite—size and then bounce out again, giving us the expanding cosmos we see today,” he says.
Brandenberger’s calculations show that ripples produced by the bounce match those already detected by satellites measuring the cosmic microwave background, and he is now looking for signatures that could distinguish the bounce from the big bang scenario.Maybe I'm just missing something obvious, but my understanding is that current measurements/observations point to an ever expanding universe, that is doomed to end via heat death.
This statement would seem to wildly contradict this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218924</id>
	<title>Ow!</title>
	<author>necro81</author>
	<datestamp>1259058120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It took me long enough to get my head around the intertwining of space and time in relativity.  Now you're telling me that they might <i>also</i> be decoupled in special circumstances.<br> <br>

Ow!  My brain hurts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It took me long enough to get my head around the intertwining of space and time in relativity .
Now you 're telling me that they might also be decoupled in special circumstances .
Ow ! My brain hurts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It took me long enough to get my head around the intertwining of space and time in relativity.
Now you're telling me that they might also be decoupled in special circumstances.
Ow!  My brain hurts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30232918</id>
	<title>Re:And FTL, too</title>
	<author>RealGrouchy</author>
	<datestamp>1257173700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think I can get that up to 10 seconds without breaking any laws <b>of the legal kind.</b></p> </div><p>No! Don't go any further! You'll risk opening a black hole!</p><p>In your heart.</p><p>- RG&gt;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think I can get that up to 10 seconds without breaking any laws of the legal kind .
No ! Do n't go any further !
You 'll risk opening a black hole ! In your heart.- RG &gt;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think I can get that up to 10 seconds without breaking any laws of the legal kind.
No! Don't go any further!
You'll risk opening a black hole!In your heart.- RG&gt;
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30222206</id>
	<title>Re:Apparent contradiction</title>
	<author>AniVisual</author>
	<datestamp>1259077860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> It's saying that there was a previous universe before us, one whose planets weren't accelerating fast enough after their Big Bang to escape from the accelerating effects of gravity. That universe ultimately collapsed back together into a Bog Crunch. From the remains of that universe, ours was born, which is fast enough to escape gravity, and we will move further and further apart.... until there is not any heat. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's saying that there was a previous universe before us , one whose planets were n't accelerating fast enough after their Big Bang to escape from the accelerating effects of gravity .
That universe ultimately collapsed back together into a Bog Crunch .
From the remains of that universe , ours was born , which is fast enough to escape gravity , and we will move further and further apart.... until there is not any heat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> It's saying that there was a previous universe before us, one whose planets weren't accelerating fast enough after their Big Bang to escape from the accelerating effects of gravity.
That universe ultimately collapsed back together into a Bog Crunch.
From the remains of that universe, ours was born, which is fast enough to escape gravity, and we will move further and further apart.... until there is not any heat. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220016</id>
	<title>Re:some modest hypotheses</title>
	<author>Knara</author>
	<datestamp>1259063340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>5. Galaxies are powered by vast electric circuits; beads on a string.</p></div><p>Oh, you mean the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma\_cosmology" title="wikipedia.org">Electric Universe Hypothesis</a> [wikipedia.org]....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>5 .
Galaxies are powered by vast electric circuits ; beads on a string.Oh , you mean the Electric Universe Hypothesis [ wikipedia.org ] ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>5.
Galaxies are powered by vast electric circuits; beads on a string.Oh, you mean the Electric Universe Hypothesis [wikipedia.org]....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30232306</id>
	<title>Re:some modest hypotheses</title>
	<author>Flere Imsaho</author>
	<datestamp>1257169020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Now exists, hypostatized out of a past (which stops existing when it stops being now) and which in turn hypostatizes the future (which does not exist.)"</p><p>Or, as I like to put it, today is tomorrow yesterday.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Now exists , hypostatized out of a past ( which stops existing when it stops being now ) and which in turn hypostatizes the future ( which does not exist .
) " Or , as I like to put it , today is tomorrow yesterday .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Now exists, hypostatized out of a past (which stops existing when it stops being now) and which in turn hypostatizes the future (which does not exist.
)"Or, as I like to put it, today is tomorrow yesterday.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30223448</id>
	<title>Re:Theory or Hypothesis?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257192660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Send our dino-clone army to eat them all up?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Send our dino-clone army to eat them all up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Send our dino-clone army to eat them all up?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219362</id>
	<title>Re:Just wondering out loud...</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1259060220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Einstein's theories of relativity basically start by saying something to the effect of "Let us assume the speed of light to be the fastest anything can travel. If we assume this, then..."</p></div></blockquote><p>Wrong.<br><em>Special</em> relativity is built on two principles:</p><ul> <li>The speed of light is the same in all inertial systems</li><li>The laws of physics look the same in each inertial system</li></ul><p>(actually, if you take Maxwell's equation into account, the first is just a special case of the second). Especially it does <em>not</em> postulate that there's nothing faster than light. Rather, </p><ul> <li>it is a <em>result</em> of SR that anything slower than light cannot be accelerated to a speed faster than light (you'd need infinitely much energy to get it just to the speed of light)</li><li>any action which goes faster than light would violate causality, so if <em>in addition</em> to SR we also assume causality, FTL cannot exist.</li></ul><p>However, you <em>can</em> describe hypothetical faster-than-light particles in SRT (so-called tachyons; those cannot be decelerated to <em>below</em> the speed of light), and AFAIK there have been experiments to look for them. Note however that as soon as you add quantum mechanics to the picture, even with tachyons no information can be transmitted faster than light (local disturbances in he quantum tachyon field only propagate with light speed).</p><p><em>General</em> relativity adds the equivalence principle (locally you cannot distinguish between gravitation and acceleration) and the demand of general covariance (the equations must look the same regardless of choice of coordinates, even if those don't correspond to an inertial system).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Einstein 's theories of relativity basically start by saying something to the effect of " Let us assume the speed of light to be the fastest anything can travel .
If we assume this , then... " Wrong.Special relativity is built on two principles : The speed of light is the same in all inertial systemsThe laws of physics look the same in each inertial system ( actually , if you take Maxwell 's equation into account , the first is just a special case of the second ) .
Especially it does not postulate that there 's nothing faster than light .
Rather , it is a result of SR that anything slower than light can not be accelerated to a speed faster than light ( you 'd need infinitely much energy to get it just to the speed of light ) any action which goes faster than light would violate causality , so if in addition to SR we also assume causality , FTL can not exist.However , you can describe hypothetical faster-than-light particles in SRT ( so-called tachyons ; those can not be decelerated to below the speed of light ) , and AFAIK there have been experiments to look for them .
Note however that as soon as you add quantum mechanics to the picture , even with tachyons no information can be transmitted faster than light ( local disturbances in he quantum tachyon field only propagate with light speed ) .General relativity adds the equivalence principle ( locally you can not distinguish between gravitation and acceleration ) and the demand of general covariance ( the equations must look the same regardless of choice of coordinates , even if those do n't correspond to an inertial system ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Einstein's theories of relativity basically start by saying something to the effect of "Let us assume the speed of light to be the fastest anything can travel.
If we assume this, then..."Wrong.Special relativity is built on two principles: The speed of light is the same in all inertial systemsThe laws of physics look the same in each inertial system(actually, if you take Maxwell's equation into account, the first is just a special case of the second).
Especially it does not postulate that there's nothing faster than light.
Rather,  it is a result of SR that anything slower than light cannot be accelerated to a speed faster than light (you'd need infinitely much energy to get it just to the speed of light)any action which goes faster than light would violate causality, so if in addition to SR we also assume causality, FTL cannot exist.However, you can describe hypothetical faster-than-light particles in SRT (so-called tachyons; those cannot be decelerated to below the speed of light), and AFAIK there have been experiments to look for them.
Note however that as soon as you add quantum mechanics to the picture, even with tachyons no information can be transmitted faster than light (local disturbances in he quantum tachyon field only propagate with light speed).General relativity adds the equivalence principle (locally you cannot distinguish between gravitation and acceleration) and the demand of general covariance (the equations must look the same regardless of choice of coordinates, even if those don't correspond to an inertial system).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218894</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30232306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30221042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30222600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30221784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30232918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30224486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30221368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30225352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30223974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30231810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30221074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30221000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30221512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30221794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30222356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30223170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30221164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30221772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30222734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30223040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30221252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30222766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30221094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30224218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30224284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30221072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30227510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30224026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30223498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30222850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30223524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30222384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30227632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30228554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30222206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30223126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30235602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30222726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30223448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30222818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30221542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30222554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30222334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30222088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30222812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30231212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_24_1955209_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30223510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_1955209.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30222812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219408
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_1955209.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218664
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218770
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219600
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30223524
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30222766
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219812
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219526
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30232918
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219396
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30222818
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30221772
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30221252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218836
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219344
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30227510
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218816
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219260
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30222726
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30228554
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30222088
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30224284
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30223510
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219376
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30221794
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219110
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_1955209.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219500
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_1955209.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30225352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30223498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30232306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30221042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30223170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30222600
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_1955209.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30221542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30223448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219208
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_1955209.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30222142
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_1955209.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218860
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_1955209.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30224762
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_1955209.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30222206
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_1955209.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30222850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30222734
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_1955209.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219604
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_1955209.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30223974
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_1955209.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220760
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_1955209.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30221164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30221074
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_1955209.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218870
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_1955209.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219624
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219362
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30221000
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30221512
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30221368
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_1955209.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220188
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30227632
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30231212
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30224218
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_1955209.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30231810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30235602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219666
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_1955209.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30223126
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_1955209.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219984
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_1955209.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218798
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219264
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220240
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30221072
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30222384
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30222356
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30222554
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30224026
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219620
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220474
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30222334
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219112
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219462
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219502
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220020
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220888
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30220254
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_1955209.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30221094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30224486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30221784
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_1955209.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218912
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_1955209.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30219232
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_24_1955209.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30218532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_24_1955209.30223040
</commentlist>
</conversation>
