<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_10_1936240</id>
	<title>The End Of Gravity As a Fundamental Force</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1263112140000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"At a symposium at the Dutch Spinoza-instituut on 8 December, 2009, string theorist <a href="http://staff.science.uva.nl/~erikv/">Erik Verlinde</a> introduced a theory that derives Newton's classical mechanics. In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of information in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings. He <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785">does not consider gravity as fundamental</a>, but as an emergent phenomenon that arises from a deeper microscopic reality. A relativistic extension of his argument leads directly to Einstein's equations."</i> Here are two <a href="http://www.scientificblogging.com/hammock\_physicist/holographic\_hot\_horizons">blog</a> <a href="http://www.scientificblogging.com/hammock\_physicist/it\_bit\_case\_gravity">entries</a> discussing Verlinde's proposal in somewhat more accessible terms. <br> <b>Update: 01/12 04:48 GMT</b> by <b> <a href="http://slashdot.org/~kdawson/">KD</a> </b>: Dr. Verlinde has put up a blog post <a href="http://staff.science.uva.nl/~erikv/page18/page18.html">explaining in simpler terms the logic of the gravity from entropy paper</a>. He introduces it with: "Because the logic of the paper is being misrepresented in some reports, I add here some clarifications."</htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " At a symposium at the Dutch Spinoza-instituut on 8 December , 2009 , string theorist Erik Verlinde introduced a theory that derives Newton 's classical mechanics .
In his theory , gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of information in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings .
He does not consider gravity as fundamental , but as an emergent phenomenon that arises from a deeper microscopic reality .
A relativistic extension of his argument leads directly to Einstein 's equations .
" Here are two blog entries discussing Verlinde 's proposal in somewhat more accessible terms .
Update : 01/12 04 : 48 GMT by KD : Dr. Verlinde has put up a blog post explaining in simpler terms the logic of the gravity from entropy paper .
He introduces it with : " Because the logic of the paper is being misrepresented in some reports , I add here some clarifications .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "At a symposium at the Dutch Spinoza-instituut on 8 December, 2009, string theorist Erik Verlinde introduced a theory that derives Newton's classical mechanics.
In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of information in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings.
He does not consider gravity as fundamental, but as an emergent phenomenon that arises from a deeper microscopic reality.
A relativistic extension of his argument leads directly to Einstein's equations.
" Here are two blog entries discussing Verlinde's proposal in somewhat more accessible terms.
Update: 01/12 04:48 GMT by  KD : Dr. Verlinde has put up a blog post explaining in simpler terms the logic of the gravity from entropy paper.
He introduces it with: "Because the logic of the paper is being misrepresented in some reports, I add here some clarifications.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716788</id>
	<title>Re:Summary of comments</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1263116700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There. That should save everyone some time.</p></div></blockquote><p>You assume the destination is more important than the journey, young Grasshopper.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There .
That should save everyone some time.You assume the destination is more important than the journey , young Grasshopper .
     </tokentext>
<sentencetext>There.
That should save everyone some time.You assume the destination is more important than the journey, young Grasshopper.
     
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717168</id>
	<title>Re:My crazy idea about gravity.</title>
	<author>Jorl17</author>
	<datestamp>1263119160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even if that is completely wrong, it is appealing -- I too, as an idiot, have thought about it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if that is completely wrong , it is appealing -- I too , as an idiot , have thought about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if that is completely wrong, it is appealing -- I too, as an idiot, have thought about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30721384</id>
	<title>Did anyone misread..</title>
	<author>OneSmartFellow</author>
	<datestamp>1263211500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>...gravity as gravy ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...gravity as gravy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...gravity as gravy ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30724334</id>
	<title>Re:Put theory to test in real world</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263231420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of information in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings.</p></div></blockquote><p>I think we could put this to the test in the real world. We could gather various entities, some of which are known to have a very low concentration of information, like marketing people and bureaucrats, and see whether they cause a local reduction in gravity.</p></div><p>This happens every day in meetings across the world - you gather clueless people together, and then an hour later you wonder 'where did all my time go?'.  So it's a hole in time, not space, but the principle still applies....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In his theory , gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of information in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings.I think we could put this to the test in the real world .
We could gather various entities , some of which are known to have a very low concentration of information , like marketing people and bureaucrats , and see whether they cause a local reduction in gravity.This happens every day in meetings across the world - you gather clueless people together , and then an hour later you wonder 'where did all my time go ? ' .
So it 's a hole in time , not space , but the principle still applies... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of information in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings.I think we could put this to the test in the real world.
We could gather various entities, some of which are known to have a very low concentration of information, like marketing people and bureaucrats, and see whether they cause a local reduction in gravity.This happens every day in meetings across the world - you gather clueless people together, and then an hour later you wonder 'where did all my time go?'.
So it's a hole in time, not space, but the principle still applies....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717864</id>
	<title>Re:Summary of comments</title>
	<author>PaganRitual</author>
	<datestamp>1263123900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>will boil down to one or more</i></p><p>And of course it's a fucking chemistry graduate that will come and spoil our fun, as always. Don't you have something to blow up?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>will boil down to one or moreAnd of course it 's a fucking chemistry graduate that will come and spoil our fun , as always .
Do n't you have something to blow up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>will boil down to one or moreAnd of course it's a fucking chemistry graduate that will come and spoil our fun, as always.
Don't you have something to blow up?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30721492</id>
	<title>Re:Potentially disastrous to science fiction write</title>
	<author>woodcutter</author>
	<datestamp>1263212940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Absolutely disagree. Since I read the  paper, off the top of my head could think of a bunch of  changes to Star Trek, Honor Harrington, 1632, and others, that still gives us the same  observed science plot devices in these universes.</p><p>If information is a property, and  changing the property changes observed "gravity", this make a great shortcut to describing these same effects in SF.</p><p>Information storage in black holes has been used in SF for about 15 years now. Adding the rest of the universe is just more writing territory</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely disagree .
Since I read the paper , off the top of my head could think of a bunch of changes to Star Trek , Honor Harrington , 1632 , and others , that still gives us the same observed science plot devices in these universes.If information is a property , and changing the property changes observed " gravity " , this make a great shortcut to describing these same effects in SF.Information storage in black holes has been used in SF for about 15 years now .
Adding the rest of the universe is just more writing territory</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely disagree.
Since I read the  paper, off the top of my head could think of a bunch of  changes to Star Trek, Honor Harrington, 1632, and others, that still gives us the same  observed science plot devices in these universes.If information is a property, and  changing the property changes observed "gravity", this make a great shortcut to describing these same effects in SF.Information storage in black holes has been used in SF for about 15 years now.
Adding the rest of the universe is just more writing territory</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719266</id>
	<title>Re:Stop posting articles from arXiv!</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1263137220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I couldn't begin to assess how plausible this theory is; neither could most of the people on Slashdot. However, I do know the arXiv is not a peer-reviewed journal, which mean that we can't even rely on the peer-review system to gain information on how sound the underlying research is. Many excellent publications appear on arXiv before being published in excellent journals, but some fairly questionable research ends up there as well.</p></div><p>So what? Slashdot occasionally picks some good arXiv gems. This is one of them. I'm glad that they didn't wait for this paper to get peer reviewed. Even if it turns out wrong, it's an interesting and very aggressive idea that deserves some consideration.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I could n't begin to assess how plausible this theory is ; neither could most of the people on Slashdot .
However , I do know the arXiv is not a peer-reviewed journal , which mean that we ca n't even rely on the peer-review system to gain information on how sound the underlying research is .
Many excellent publications appear on arXiv before being published in excellent journals , but some fairly questionable research ends up there as well.So what ?
Slashdot occasionally picks some good arXiv gems .
This is one of them .
I 'm glad that they did n't wait for this paper to get peer reviewed .
Even if it turns out wrong , it 's an interesting and very aggressive idea that deserves some consideration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I couldn't begin to assess how plausible this theory is; neither could most of the people on Slashdot.
However, I do know the arXiv is not a peer-reviewed journal, which mean that we can't even rely on the peer-review system to gain information on how sound the underlying research is.
Many excellent publications appear on arXiv before being published in excellent journals, but some fairly questionable research ends up there as well.So what?
Slashdot occasionally picks some good arXiv gems.
This is one of them.
I'm glad that they didn't wait for this paper to get peer reviewed.
Even if it turns out wrong, it's an interesting and very aggressive idea that deserves some consideration.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30720226</id>
	<title>Stating the obvious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263149400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems weird no one has really discussed the potential magnitude of this.</p><p>If it leads to the ability to manipulate gravity it could be one of the most important discoveries of all time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems weird no one has really discussed the potential magnitude of this.If it leads to the ability to manipulate gravity it could be one of the most important discoveries of all time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems weird no one has really discussed the potential magnitude of this.If it leads to the ability to manipulate gravity it could be one of the most important discoveries of all time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717728</id>
	<title>Re:Summary of comments</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1263123000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>``# Ivory-tower egghead academics want to keep all their science locked away behind paywalls! How are we supposed to evaluate this if we can't read the paper?!?''</p><p>Actually, it's not the academics who want to keep their science locked away behind paywalls. It's the publishing industry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>` ` # Ivory-tower egghead academics want to keep all their science locked away behind paywalls !
How are we supposed to evaluate this if we ca n't read the paper ? ! ?
''Actually , it 's not the academics who want to keep their science locked away behind paywalls .
It 's the publishing industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>``# Ivory-tower egghead academics want to keep all their science locked away behind paywalls!
How are we supposed to evaluate this if we can't read the paper?!?
''Actually, it's not the academics who want to keep their science locked away behind paywalls.
It's the publishing industry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30736802</id>
	<title>Re:Summary of comments</title>
	<author>drmitch</author>
	<datestamp>1263310620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>These scientists should just read the Bible!</htmltext>
<tokenext>These scientists should just read the Bible !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These scientists should just read the Bible!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719276</id>
	<title>Keep Your Hands in Plain View</title>
	<author>flyneye</author>
	<datestamp>1263137340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just back away from the blackboard...carefully...don't make any furtive motions.<br>You are under arrest for breaking the law of gravity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just back away from the blackboard...carefully...do n't make any furtive motions.You are under arrest for breaking the law of gravity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just back away from the blackboard...carefully...don't make any furtive motions.You are under arrest for breaking the law of gravity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718140</id>
	<title>Re:Summary of comments</title>
	<author>thrawn\_aj</author>
	<datestamp>1263125700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>There. That should save everyone some time.</p></div></blockquote><p>You assume the destination is more important than the journey, young Grasshopper.

  </p></div><p>Too many cowpies on this particular journey<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:p</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There .
That should save everyone some time.You assume the destination is more important than the journey , young Grasshopper .
Too many cowpies on this particular journey : p</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There.
That should save everyone some time.You assume the destination is more important than the journey, young Grasshopper.
Too many cowpies on this particular journey :p
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719352</id>
	<title>Blood Music</title>
	<author>TheUz</author>
	<datestamp>1263138240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looks like somebody has been reading Greg Bear, ya?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like somebody has been reading Greg Bear , ya ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like somebody has been reading Greg Bear, ya?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30720780</id>
	<title>In Einstein's theory, Gravity isn't a force either</title>
	<author>HuguesT</author>
	<datestamp>1263201000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Einstein's GRT, Gravity emerges from space-time curvature. In fact the first thought experiment in the classic book "Gravitation" by Misner et al. is to consider the trajectory of a tennis ball, a bullet and a laser ray on Earth, and to find out that in space-time all three have the same curvature. Particles follow world lines and the force of gravity is an illusion. In The Fine Paper, gravity arises from the holographic principle, but reading it (admitedly very quickly), I'm not sure what difference it makes.</p><p>The ArXiV paper is verbose and low on technical details. I guess we'll have to wait for the full refereed paper and see if any useful prediction can be made from the new theory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Einstein 's GRT , Gravity emerges from space-time curvature .
In fact the first thought experiment in the classic book " Gravitation " by Misner et al .
is to consider the trajectory of a tennis ball , a bullet and a laser ray on Earth , and to find out that in space-time all three have the same curvature .
Particles follow world lines and the force of gravity is an illusion .
In The Fine Paper , gravity arises from the holographic principle , but reading it ( admitedly very quickly ) , I 'm not sure what difference it makes.The ArXiV paper is verbose and low on technical details .
I guess we 'll have to wait for the full refereed paper and see if any useful prediction can be made from the new theory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Einstein's GRT, Gravity emerges from space-time curvature.
In fact the first thought experiment in the classic book "Gravitation" by Misner et al.
is to consider the trajectory of a tennis ball, a bullet and a laser ray on Earth, and to find out that in space-time all three have the same curvature.
Particles follow world lines and the force of gravity is an illusion.
In The Fine Paper, gravity arises from the holographic principle, but reading it (admitedly very quickly), I'm not sure what difference it makes.The ArXiV paper is verbose and low on technical details.
I guess we'll have to wait for the full refereed paper and see if any useful prediction can be made from the new theory.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717012</id>
	<title>Re:Stop posting articles from arXiv!</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1263118140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Rather than post completely uninformed comments on the subject, leave that to people in the field.</p></div><p>Awwww, don't we get to do anything? We have such expertize in giving completely uninformed comments, who else has such refined skill at not RTFA, probably not even the summary and yet comment as if it was the topic of our PhD thesis in a field we know nothing about? That sort of thing only comes through years of practice and non-studying. No I think we'll leave them to do the informed comments, for the truly abhorrent comments devoid of all facts, correctness and sanity they should leave it to professionals.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rather than post completely uninformed comments on the subject , leave that to people in the field.Awwww , do n't we get to do anything ?
We have such expertize in giving completely uninformed comments , who else has such refined skill at not RTFA , probably not even the summary and yet comment as if it was the topic of our PhD thesis in a field we know nothing about ?
That sort of thing only comes through years of practice and non-studying .
No I think we 'll leave them to do the informed comments , for the truly abhorrent comments devoid of all facts , correctness and sanity they should leave it to professionals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rather than post completely uninformed comments on the subject, leave that to people in the field.Awwww, don't we get to do anything?
We have such expertize in giving completely uninformed comments, who else has such refined skill at not RTFA, probably not even the summary and yet comment as if it was the topic of our PhD thesis in a field we know nothing about?
That sort of thing only comes through years of practice and non-studying.
No I think we'll leave them to do the informed comments, for the truly abhorrent comments devoid of all facts, correctness and sanity they should leave it to professionals.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719542</id>
	<title>Information?</title>
	<author>MrNatas</author>
	<datestamp>1263140640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, like, with so much information on, like, the interwebs, earth will turn into a black hole in 2012?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , like , with so much information on , like , the interwebs , earth will turn into a black hole in 2012 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, like, with so much information on, like, the interwebs, earth will turn into a black hole in 2012?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719126</id>
	<title>Quantum mechanics too...</title>
	<author>Baldrson</author>
	<datestamp>1263135300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From <a href="http://boundary.org/bi/articles/Reflections\_on\_PSCQM.pdf" title="boundary.org">Reflections on PSCQM</a> [boundary.org]:<blockquote><div><p>The resemblance between these two kinds of finality becomes even closer when we look
at certain kinds of continuous parachains, most notably random walks for which we are given
both the initial and final positions. It turns out that it is by minimizing a certain integral with the
dimensions of information that we get the expected trajectory of such a doubly conditioned
random walk. This actually leads in the limit to the laws of Newtonian mechanics for the walker
if we identify dispersion rate with mass 3, and it turns out that there are features of this situation
suggestive of both quantum mechanics and relativity. That&rsquo;s another story, however. For the
present, the following are the essential points:
</p><p>
* Aristotelian physics is the special case. The general case is Newtonian physics.
</p><p>* The theory of Markov chains is the special case. The general case is the theory of
Markov parachains.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From Reflections on PSCQM [ boundary.org ] : The resemblance between these two kinds of finality becomes even closer when we look at certain kinds of continuous parachains , most notably random walks for which we are given both the initial and final positions .
It turns out that it is by minimizing a certain integral with the dimensions of information that we get the expected trajectory of such a doubly conditioned random walk .
This actually leads in the limit to the laws of Newtonian mechanics for the walker if we identify dispersion rate with mass 3 , and it turns out that there are features of this situation suggestive of both quantum mechanics and relativity .
That    s another story , however .
For the present , the following are the essential points : * Aristotelian physics is the special case .
The general case is Newtonian physics .
* The theory of Markov chains is the special case .
The general case is the theory of Markov parachains .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From Reflections on PSCQM [boundary.org]:The resemblance between these two kinds of finality becomes even closer when we look
at certain kinds of continuous parachains, most notably random walks for which we are given
both the initial and final positions.
It turns out that it is by minimizing a certain integral with the
dimensions of information that we get the expected trajectory of such a doubly conditioned
random walk.
This actually leads in the limit to the laws of Newtonian mechanics for the walker
if we identify dispersion rate with mass 3, and it turns out that there are features of this situation
suggestive of both quantum mechanics and relativity.
That’s another story, however.
For the
present, the following are the essential points:

* Aristotelian physics is the special case.
The general case is Newtonian physics.
* The theory of Markov chains is the special case.
The general case is the theory of
Markov parachains.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718334</id>
	<title>Ok, great so....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263127140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tell me, in layman's terms --- Does this mean my flying car and anti-gravity jetpack are finally going to be on sale at wal-mart any time soon?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tell me , in layman 's terms --- Does this mean my flying car and anti-gravity jetpack are finally going to be on sale at wal-mart any time soon ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tell me, in layman's terms --- Does this mean my flying car and anti-gravity jetpack are finally going to be on sale at wal-mart any time soon?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717554</id>
	<title>Simuverse</title>
	<author>Citizen of Earth</author>
	<datestamp>1263121560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Finally, proof that the universe is a computer simulation!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally , proof that the universe is a computer simulation !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally, proof that the universe is a computer simulation!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719022</id>
	<title>Gravity:Entropy, Big Bang:Big Rip</title>
	<author>StaticEngine</author>
	<datestamp>1263133800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm wondering, if Gravity is inversely related to Entropy, then would this explain the initial rapid expansion of the Universe, the settling out, and the relatively recent accelerated expansion of the Universe towards "Heat Death"?</p><p>Instants after the Big Bang, there would have been very little entropy, since the Universe was nearly uniform, with almost no differentiation between particles, forces, etc.  With little entropy, everything tends to fly apart, quickly.  Over a few hundred million years, the Universe becomes more complex, and gravity starts to take hold, slowing the acceleration outwards.</p><p>Yet, it had already reached a critical point of expansion where entropty was bound to continue to increase because of the great distances between everything.  Thus, gravity weakens on a grand scale, and the expansion of the Universe begins to accelerate again.  Would that be a testable (well, it's already observed, right?) prediction of this theory?</p><p>Or maybe I should read up on this more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm wondering , if Gravity is inversely related to Entropy , then would this explain the initial rapid expansion of the Universe , the settling out , and the relatively recent accelerated expansion of the Universe towards " Heat Death " ? Instants after the Big Bang , there would have been very little entropy , since the Universe was nearly uniform , with almost no differentiation between particles , forces , etc .
With little entropy , everything tends to fly apart , quickly .
Over a few hundred million years , the Universe becomes more complex , and gravity starts to take hold , slowing the acceleration outwards.Yet , it had already reached a critical point of expansion where entropty was bound to continue to increase because of the great distances between everything .
Thus , gravity weakens on a grand scale , and the expansion of the Universe begins to accelerate again .
Would that be a testable ( well , it 's already observed , right ?
) prediction of this theory ? Or maybe I should read up on this more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm wondering, if Gravity is inversely related to Entropy, then would this explain the initial rapid expansion of the Universe, the settling out, and the relatively recent accelerated expansion of the Universe towards "Heat Death"?Instants after the Big Bang, there would have been very little entropy, since the Universe was nearly uniform, with almost no differentiation between particles, forces, etc.
With little entropy, everything tends to fly apart, quickly.
Over a few hundred million years, the Universe becomes more complex, and gravity starts to take hold, slowing the acceleration outwards.Yet, it had already reached a critical point of expansion where entropty was bound to continue to increase because of the great distances between everything.
Thus, gravity weakens on a grand scale, and the expansion of the Universe begins to accelerate again.
Would that be a testable (well, it's already observed, right?
) prediction of this theory?Or maybe I should read up on this more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718508</id>
	<title>Re:Stop posting articles from arXiv!</title>
	<author>MadMagician</author>
	<datestamp>1263128460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you've spent any time in academia, you'd know that peer review is a cruel joke.</p><p>It's more politics than science. </p></div><p>Somebody didn't get tenure.</p><p>I didn't get tenure either, and there were serious political issues, the first time. But that's not a problem with peer review (which I still am asked to do, occasionally). Most PhD's never get tenure, at least not in a research university. Academia is one bitch of a career path.</p><p>I still publish papers, in less-prestigious journals and conferences, mostly peer-reviewed. Some papers are turned down. So it goes...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 've spent any time in academia , you 'd know that peer review is a cruel joke.It 's more politics than science .
Somebody did n't get tenure.I did n't get tenure either , and there were serious political issues , the first time .
But that 's not a problem with peer review ( which I still am asked to do , occasionally ) .
Most PhD 's never get tenure , at least not in a research university .
Academia is one bitch of a career path.I still publish papers , in less-prestigious journals and conferences , mostly peer-reviewed .
Some papers are turned down .
So it goes.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you've spent any time in academia, you'd know that peer review is a cruel joke.It's more politics than science.
Somebody didn't get tenure.I didn't get tenure either, and there were serious political issues, the first time.
But that's not a problem with peer review (which I still am asked to do, occasionally).
Most PhD's never get tenure, at least not in a research university.
Academia is one bitch of a career path.I still publish papers, in less-prestigious journals and conferences, mostly peer-reviewed.
Some papers are turned down.
So it goes...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716970</id>
	<title>My crazy idea about gravity.</title>
	<author>DigiShaman</author>
	<datestamp>1263117780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had this crazy idea about gravity. I've always though gravity was a "push" rather then a "pull". The way I see it, matter (quarks and other subatomic particles) doesn't occupy space/time, but rather displaces it. Meanwhile, space/time is trying displace the void that is matter. It's sort of like having a sheet of rubber and then creating a small pin prick in it. If I try hard enough, I could push my finger through it, but the rubber will try and displace that bigger hole I'm creating.</p><p>Which leads me to a system of proportional displacement. If the distance of space/time is greater on the outside vs between two objects, they get "pushed" toward each other. However, if the distance of space/time between two objects becomes great enough, they pulled apart. Kind of like how galaxies coalesce stars, but galaxies them selves are so far away from each other, the entire universe gets expanded as we speak.</p><p>Anyways, just may crazy messed up idea. No proof what-so-ever to back it up. Granted, I'm not ignorant to the real math a science we know today. After all, the written laws of physics is what gets us to the moon and mars.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had this crazy idea about gravity .
I 've always though gravity was a " push " rather then a " pull " .
The way I see it , matter ( quarks and other subatomic particles ) does n't occupy space/time , but rather displaces it .
Meanwhile , space/time is trying displace the void that is matter .
It 's sort of like having a sheet of rubber and then creating a small pin prick in it .
If I try hard enough , I could push my finger through it , but the rubber will try and displace that bigger hole I 'm creating.Which leads me to a system of proportional displacement .
If the distance of space/time is greater on the outside vs between two objects , they get " pushed " toward each other .
However , if the distance of space/time between two objects becomes great enough , they pulled apart .
Kind of like how galaxies coalesce stars , but galaxies them selves are so far away from each other , the entire universe gets expanded as we speak.Anyways , just may crazy messed up idea .
No proof what-so-ever to back it up .
Granted , I 'm not ignorant to the real math a science we know today .
After all , the written laws of physics is what gets us to the moon and mars .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had this crazy idea about gravity.
I've always though gravity was a "push" rather then a "pull".
The way I see it, matter (quarks and other subatomic particles) doesn't occupy space/time, but rather displaces it.
Meanwhile, space/time is trying displace the void that is matter.
It's sort of like having a sheet of rubber and then creating a small pin prick in it.
If I try hard enough, I could push my finger through it, but the rubber will try and displace that bigger hole I'm creating.Which leads me to a system of proportional displacement.
If the distance of space/time is greater on the outside vs between two objects, they get "pushed" toward each other.
However, if the distance of space/time between two objects becomes great enough, they pulled apart.
Kind of like how galaxies coalesce stars, but galaxies them selves are so far away from each other, the entire universe gets expanded as we speak.Anyways, just may crazy messed up idea.
No proof what-so-ever to back it up.
Granted, I'm not ignorant to the real math a science we know today.
After all, the written laws of physics is what gets us to the moon and mars.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717198</id>
	<title>Re:way cool</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263119460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>sorry to disappoint, but the article starts out assuming the holographic prinipal. this leads to gravity and inertia emerging.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>sorry to disappoint , but the article starts out assuming the holographic prinipal .
this leads to gravity and inertia emerging .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sorry to disappoint, but the article starts out assuming the holographic prinipal.
this leads to gravity and inertia emerging.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717736</id>
	<title>They turned it off?</title>
	<author>jeremylichtman</author>
	<datestamp>1263123060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was just joking with one of my staff the other day that they left the gravity on over the weekend. Now it turns out they didn't?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was just joking with one of my staff the other day that they left the gravity on over the weekend .
Now it turns out they did n't ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was just joking with one of my staff the other day that they left the gravity on over the weekend.
Now it turns out they didn't?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718174</id>
	<title>Lack of respect</title>
	<author>Cunk</author>
	<datestamp>1263125880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Removing the "fundamental force" label from gravity is an insult and shows just how little respect these young physicists have for the universe.  Next thing you know they'll be ignoring it completely while they sit all smug in their floating universities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Removing the " fundamental force " label from gravity is an insult and shows just how little respect these young physicists have for the universe .
Next thing you know they 'll be ignoring it completely while they sit all smug in their floating universities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Removing the "fundamental force" label from gravity is an insult and shows just how little respect these young physicists have for the universe.
Next thing you know they'll be ignoring it completely while they sit all smug in their floating universities.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716994</id>
	<title>Here is two</title>
	<author>SgtKeeling</author>
	<datestamp>1263117960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Here is two blog entries discussing Verlinde's theory in somewhat more accessible terms.</p></div><p>Perhaps this should be, "Here <strong>are</strong> two..." ?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is two blog entries discussing Verlinde 's theory in somewhat more accessible terms.Perhaps this should be , " Here are two... " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is two blog entries discussing Verlinde's theory in somewhat more accessible terms.Perhaps this should be, "Here are two..." ?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717080</id>
	<title>Obligatory HGGTG</title>
	<author>mfnickster</author>
	<datestamp>1263118560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Hotblack Desiato's chief research accountant has recently been appointed Professor of Neomathematics at the University of Maximegalon, in recognition of both his General and his Special Theories of Disaster Area Tax Returns, in which he proves that the whole fabric of the space-time continuum is not merely curved, it is in fact totally bent."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Hotblack Desiato 's chief research accountant has recently been appointed Professor of Neomathematics at the University of Maximegalon , in recognition of both his General and his Special Theories of Disaster Area Tax Returns , in which he proves that the whole fabric of the space-time continuum is not merely curved , it is in fact totally bent .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Hotblack Desiato's chief research accountant has recently been appointed Professor of Neomathematics at the University of Maximegalon, in recognition of both his General and his Special Theories of Disaster Area Tax Returns, in which he proves that the whole fabric of the space-time continuum is not merely curved, it is in fact totally bent.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718012</id>
	<title>Re:What is "information"? (In that context.)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263124980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Information, as in the inverse of entropy. It's a measurable quantity and has implications for quantum mechanics: for instance, when you cool down an atom, you get more information as to its exact location. As a result, the "size" of the atom will increase (the uncertainty principle, you can think of it as conservation of information) and cause measurable effects such as Bose-Einstein condensates.</p><p>What this guy is saying is that gravity is caused by applying a kind of conservation of information to a holographic universe; the action at a distance is a side effect of expanding information that interacts in two dimensions into three dimensions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Information , as in the inverse of entropy .
It 's a measurable quantity and has implications for quantum mechanics : for instance , when you cool down an atom , you get more information as to its exact location .
As a result , the " size " of the atom will increase ( the uncertainty principle , you can think of it as conservation of information ) and cause measurable effects such as Bose-Einstein condensates.What this guy is saying is that gravity is caused by applying a kind of conservation of information to a holographic universe ; the action at a distance is a side effect of expanding information that interacts in two dimensions into three dimensions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Information, as in the inverse of entropy.
It's a measurable quantity and has implications for quantum mechanics: for instance, when you cool down an atom, you get more information as to its exact location.
As a result, the "size" of the atom will increase (the uncertainty principle, you can think of it as conservation of information) and cause measurable effects such as Bose-Einstein condensates.What this guy is saying is that gravity is caused by applying a kind of conservation of information to a holographic universe; the action at a distance is a side effect of expanding information that interacts in two dimensions into three dimensions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718128</id>
	<title>Re:Summary of comments</title>
	<author>thrawn\_aj</author>
	<datestamp>1263125640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bravo! I lol'd<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bravo !
I lol 'd : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bravo!
I lol'd :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718538</id>
	<title>I always thought gravity didn't exist anyway</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263128760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't it simply an imaginary force that "looks" like it exists because we are standing on a body with a  mass that warps space time by exactly that amount?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't it simply an imaginary force that " looks " like it exists because we are standing on a body with a mass that warps space time by exactly that amount ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't it simply an imaginary force that "looks" like it exists because we are standing on a body with a  mass that warps space time by exactly that amount?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30723414</id>
	<title>Physics undegrad degree in 4 courses.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263226800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am tired of physics being 'white mans magic' to me.  What four courses textbooks do I need to buy and understand to rectify this?  If the four have prerequisites, they need not be mentioned.  Just - which four, if absorbed are equivalent to a physics undergrad degree?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am tired of physics being 'white mans magic ' to me .
What four courses textbooks do I need to buy and understand to rectify this ?
If the four have prerequisites , they need not be mentioned .
Just - which four , if absorbed are equivalent to a physics undergrad degree ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am tired of physics being 'white mans magic' to me.
What four courses textbooks do I need to buy and understand to rectify this?
If the four have prerequisites, they need not be mentioned.
Just - which four, if absorbed are equivalent to a physics undergrad degree?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717916</id>
	<title>Re:Stop posting articles from arXiv!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263124320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>sad but true</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>sad but true</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sad but true</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30723608</id>
	<title>Whoa</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263227700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is heavy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is heavy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is heavy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717598</id>
	<title>Re:What is "information"? (In that context.)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263121920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not quite.</p><p>As I understand it (I'm a chemist and not a theoretical physicist) the information that is being talked about relates to degrees of freedom of groups of particles. Say you have two particles, the interaction between them results in more information than a single particle alone. Three particles results in even more information, and so on.</p><p>The more degrees of freedom, the lower the entropy. This is because more interactions allow each particle to exchange information more freely and reach a steady-state more quickly. Therefore there is a "pressure" for objects to collect together into groups rather than staying spread out. Thus groupings of particles have more interaction with each other than they do with empty space and, according to this paper, this is expressed as an apparent force - gravity.</p><p>This is similar to surface tension in a liquid. Since each molecule in a drop of water interacts with each other they have some amount of attraction. At the air-water boundary you have water molecules interacting more with each other than the molecules in the air. This results in a force which tends to cause the surface of the water to contract to its lowest level of entropy, ie: lowest energy state. It's because of this that liquid droplets in a free-fall vacuum tend to become nearly spherical.</p><p>The information that is being talked about here can't simply be replaced with other words such as gluon, neutrinos, thetans, and so on because we aren't talking about particles, we are talking about interactions between particles. Information is a property of interaction, not the items interacting themselves.</p><p>(This is all my spitballing, of course. I've probably terribly mangled these concepts in an attempt to explain them simply so take all that I've said with a grain of salt.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not quite.As I understand it ( I 'm a chemist and not a theoretical physicist ) the information that is being talked about relates to degrees of freedom of groups of particles .
Say you have two particles , the interaction between them results in more information than a single particle alone .
Three particles results in even more information , and so on.The more degrees of freedom , the lower the entropy .
This is because more interactions allow each particle to exchange information more freely and reach a steady-state more quickly .
Therefore there is a " pressure " for objects to collect together into groups rather than staying spread out .
Thus groupings of particles have more interaction with each other than they do with empty space and , according to this paper , this is expressed as an apparent force - gravity.This is similar to surface tension in a liquid .
Since each molecule in a drop of water interacts with each other they have some amount of attraction .
At the air-water boundary you have water molecules interacting more with each other than the molecules in the air .
This results in a force which tends to cause the surface of the water to contract to its lowest level of entropy , ie : lowest energy state .
It 's because of this that liquid droplets in a free-fall vacuum tend to become nearly spherical.The information that is being talked about here ca n't simply be replaced with other words such as gluon , neutrinos , thetans , and so on because we are n't talking about particles , we are talking about interactions between particles .
Information is a property of interaction , not the items interacting themselves .
( This is all my spitballing , of course .
I 've probably terribly mangled these concepts in an attempt to explain them simply so take all that I 've said with a grain of salt .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not quite.As I understand it (I'm a chemist and not a theoretical physicist) the information that is being talked about relates to degrees of freedom of groups of particles.
Say you have two particles, the interaction between them results in more information than a single particle alone.
Three particles results in even more information, and so on.The more degrees of freedom, the lower the entropy.
This is because more interactions allow each particle to exchange information more freely and reach a steady-state more quickly.
Therefore there is a "pressure" for objects to collect together into groups rather than staying spread out.
Thus groupings of particles have more interaction with each other than they do with empty space and, according to this paper, this is expressed as an apparent force - gravity.This is similar to surface tension in a liquid.
Since each molecule in a drop of water interacts with each other they have some amount of attraction.
At the air-water boundary you have water molecules interacting more with each other than the molecules in the air.
This results in a force which tends to cause the surface of the water to contract to its lowest level of entropy, ie: lowest energy state.
It's because of this that liquid droplets in a free-fall vacuum tend to become nearly spherical.The information that is being talked about here can't simply be replaced with other words such as gluon, neutrinos, thetans, and so on because we aren't talking about particles, we are talking about interactions between particles.
Information is a property of interaction, not the items interacting themselves.
(This is all my spitballing, of course.
I've probably terribly mangled these concepts in an attempt to explain them simply so take all that I've said with a grain of salt.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717372</id>
	<title>Re:What is "information"? (In that context.)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263120480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally, I understood that you can make your own black hole simply putting enough 1TB hard disks together.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I understood that you can make your own black hole simply putting enough 1TB hard disks together .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I understood that you can make your own black hole simply putting enough 1TB hard disks together.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716922</id>
	<title>Good books to get familiar with all this stuff</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263117540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Black holes entropy, urundu effect, holographic principle, dark matter, dark energy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....<br>Q few years back I could understand quite a good amount of hot new physic's concepts thanks to a book about string theory, from newton to einstein's relativity, calabi yau spaces, but I am completely lost in all those new theories. I got some math and physics background, but all this is just too far away from what I can understand.</p><p>Are there any good and simple books explaining most of all those astrophysics and quantum concepts ?<br>I mean something that presents clearly with a lot of analogies all those cutting edge works in physics so I don't miss the point when a good article like this one pops up ?</p><p>St&#233;phane</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Black holes entropy , urundu effect , holographic principle , dark matter , dark energy ....Q few years back I could understand quite a good amount of hot new physic 's concepts thanks to a book about string theory , from newton to einstein 's relativity , calabi yau spaces , but I am completely lost in all those new theories .
I got some math and physics background , but all this is just too far away from what I can understand.Are there any good and simple books explaining most of all those astrophysics and quantum concepts ? I mean something that presents clearly with a lot of analogies all those cutting edge works in physics so I do n't miss the point when a good article like this one pops up ? St   phane</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Black holes entropy, urundu effect, holographic principle, dark matter, dark energy ....Q few years back I could understand quite a good amount of hot new physic's concepts thanks to a book about string theory, from newton to einstein's relativity, calabi yau spaces, but I am completely lost in all those new theories.
I got some math and physics background, but all this is just too far away from what I can understand.Are there any good and simple books explaining most of all those astrophysics and quantum concepts ?I mean something that presents clearly with a lot of analogies all those cutting edge works in physics so I don't miss the point when a good article like this one pops up ?Stéphane</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718388</id>
	<title>Re:Testable, currently unseen predictions.</title>
	<author>Eli Gottlieb</author>
	<datestamp>1263127500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's a string theorist, what did you expect?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's a string theorist , what did you expect ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's a string theorist, what did you expect?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719604</id>
	<title>I think he's missing the point.</title>
	<author>seeker\_1us</author>
	<datestamp>1263141540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I've skimmed the paper, and it looks interesting, but he's missing the point.
</p><p>
I've taken statistical mechanics.  You calculate thermodynamic entropy levels from the canonical distribution (or the grand canonical distribution).  That involves the energy of the system, which needs to take the forces into account, because force begets potential energy.
</p><p>
He does the calculations backwards and says "oh you have an entropy change due to a change in position, so there must be a force."
</p><p>
DUH.
</p><p>
It does not follow that the force is not real.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've skimmed the paper , and it looks interesting , but he 's missing the point .
I 've taken statistical mechanics .
You calculate thermodynamic entropy levels from the canonical distribution ( or the grand canonical distribution ) .
That involves the energy of the system , which needs to take the forces into account , because force begets potential energy .
He does the calculations backwards and says " oh you have an entropy change due to a change in position , so there must be a force .
" DUH .
It does not follow that the force is not real .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I've skimmed the paper, and it looks interesting, but he's missing the point.
I've taken statistical mechanics.
You calculate thermodynamic entropy levels from the canonical distribution (or the grand canonical distribution).
That involves the energy of the system, which needs to take the forces into account, because force begets potential energy.
He does the calculations backwards and says "oh you have an entropy change due to a change in position, so there must be a force.
"

DUH.
It does not follow that the force is not real.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30721022</id>
	<title>Re:Comments from Lubos Motl</title>
	<author>Krokant</author>
	<datestamp>1263205200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From his blogpost: "At the level of the dimensional analysis, it had to work, of course. However, all the detailed justifications, special qualitative assumptions, and numerical factors seem to be either unjustified or downright wrong which creates some doubts about the chance to make this argument serious."<br>
<br>
That's a bit stronger than his polite remark "I remain undecided" at the end<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;).<br>
<br>
I quit reading at the point where the original author claims that the entropy for an open system is given by Boltzmann's formula S = ln W. That is simply incorrect since the derivation of this formula clearly assumes a closed system (and not somebody pulling a polymer with a pair of scissors in a heatbath, which is an open system). For open systems, there are numerous other ways of defining entropy (which you can all derive from the Boltzmann entropy by modelling the heat bath by the way).<br>
<br>
There might be some merit in turning the reasoning of most physicists around: starting from Boltzmann until today, most physicists try to explain entropy and the second law of thermodynamics as originating from a more microscopic view (and there are some very convincing arguments for it, see J. Bricmont et al). However, I doubt that by mixing concepts from information theory and statistical mechanics, and then by turning everything upside down, you'll get to a point where you discover the new all-encompassing force that underlies everything ("information"??).</htmltext>
<tokenext>From his blogpost : " At the level of the dimensional analysis , it had to work , of course .
However , all the detailed justifications , special qualitative assumptions , and numerical factors seem to be either unjustified or downright wrong which creates some doubts about the chance to make this argument serious .
" That 's a bit stronger than his polite remark " I remain undecided " at the end ; ) .
I quit reading at the point where the original author claims that the entropy for an open system is given by Boltzmann 's formula S = ln W. That is simply incorrect since the derivation of this formula clearly assumes a closed system ( and not somebody pulling a polymer with a pair of scissors in a heatbath , which is an open system ) .
For open systems , there are numerous other ways of defining entropy ( which you can all derive from the Boltzmann entropy by modelling the heat bath by the way ) .
There might be some merit in turning the reasoning of most physicists around : starting from Boltzmann until today , most physicists try to explain entropy and the second law of thermodynamics as originating from a more microscopic view ( and there are some very convincing arguments for it , see J. Bricmont et al ) .
However , I doubt that by mixing concepts from information theory and statistical mechanics , and then by turning everything upside down , you 'll get to a point where you discover the new all-encompassing force that underlies everything ( " information " ? ?
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From his blogpost: "At the level of the dimensional analysis, it had to work, of course.
However, all the detailed justifications, special qualitative assumptions, and numerical factors seem to be either unjustified or downright wrong which creates some doubts about the chance to make this argument serious.
"

That's a bit stronger than his polite remark "I remain undecided" at the end ;).
I quit reading at the point where the original author claims that the entropy for an open system is given by Boltzmann's formula S = ln W. That is simply incorrect since the derivation of this formula clearly assumes a closed system (and not somebody pulling a polymer with a pair of scissors in a heatbath, which is an open system).
For open systems, there are numerous other ways of defining entropy (which you can all derive from the Boltzmann entropy by modelling the heat bath by the way).
There might be some merit in turning the reasoning of most physicists around: starting from Boltzmann until today, most physicists try to explain entropy and the second law of thermodynamics as originating from a more microscopic view (and there are some very convincing arguments for it, see J. Bricmont et al).
However, I doubt that by mixing concepts from information theory and statistical mechanics, and then by turning everything upside down, you'll get to a point where you discover the new all-encompassing force that underlies everything ("information"??
).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719698</id>
	<title>Re:Comments from Lubos Motl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263142560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why on earth should anyone care what Lubos says or thinks?  What exactly has he done to earn any respect in this or any other field in physics?  The guy was booted from Harvard - (supposedly because of his big mouth).  Yet what research is he doing now? Was he so toxic that he was unable to get a post any where else?  Where are his current publications?  Its not like he needs anything much beyond a blackboard to do theoretical work on strings.  Was his past research of such fundamental value that his future Nobel is already sealed?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why on earth should anyone care what Lubos says or thinks ?
What exactly has he done to earn any respect in this or any other field in physics ?
The guy was booted from Harvard - ( supposedly because of his big mouth ) .
Yet what research is he doing now ?
Was he so toxic that he was unable to get a post any where else ?
Where are his current publications ?
Its not like he needs anything much beyond a blackboard to do theoretical work on strings .
Was his past research of such fundamental value that his future Nobel is already sealed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why on earth should anyone care what Lubos says or thinks?
What exactly has he done to earn any respect in this or any other field in physics?
The guy was booted from Harvard - (supposedly because of his big mouth).
Yet what research is he doing now?
Was he so toxic that he was unable to get a post any where else?
Where are his current publications?
Its not like he needs anything much beyond a blackboard to do theoretical work on strings.
Was his past research of such fundamental value that his future Nobel is already sealed?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30721810</id>
	<title>Re:Stop posting articles from arXiv!</title>
	<author>spazdor</author>
	<datestamp>1263218460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Global warming denialism is my guess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Global warming denialism is my guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Global warming denialism is my guess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718224</id>
	<title>Re:Comments from Lubos Motl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263126180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Global warming comes to South Park"<br>"Avatar: blue smurf racist propaganda done right"<br>"Sex and intelligence: 3.6 extra points"</p><p>This guy would be a good candidate for King of the Trolls even without the chromatic-seizure-inducing background on his blog. Bravo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Global warming comes to South Park " " Avatar : blue smurf racist propaganda done right " " Sex and intelligence : 3.6 extra points " This guy would be a good candidate for King of the Trolls even without the chromatic-seizure-inducing background on his blog .
Bravo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Global warming comes to South Park""Avatar: blue smurf racist propaganda done right""Sex and intelligence: 3.6 extra points"This guy would be a good candidate for King of the Trolls even without the chromatic-seizure-inducing background on his blog.
Bravo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717050</id>
	<title>Phenomenon from a deeper microscropic reality...</title>
	<author>taxman\_10m</author>
	<datestamp>1263118380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah yes, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midiclorians#Midi-chlorians\_and\_the\_Chosen\_One" title="wikipedia.org">midichlorians</a> [wikipedia.org].  I've heard of this before.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah yes , midichlorians [ wikipedia.org ] .
I 've heard of this before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah yes, midichlorians [wikipedia.org].
I've heard of this before.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30723524</id>
	<title>Re:Summary of comments - Wow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263227340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow,</p><p>I checked out the last link just out of curiosity and... wow.  Just when you think there isn't anyone more crazy.. they appear out of nowhere!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow,I checked out the last link just out of curiosity and... wow. Just when you think there is n't anyone more crazy.. they appear out of nowhere !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow,I checked out the last link just out of curiosity and... wow.  Just when you think there isn't anyone more crazy.. they appear out of nowhere!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718692</id>
	<title>I read the hammock physicist article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263130200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read the description of the paper from the hammock physicist (I studied computers in university, took enough relativity in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....a philosophy class... to know that I don't have near enough math to swallow this in full.  But the description reads easily enough.  It basically takes a backwards approach.  Its not a slam dunk, as stated there is a lot of hand waving (details left to fill in) but it covers a very broad range of physics, most of which fits nicely already.  There are a few litmus tests that will be applied.  Does it predict anything, and do those predictions hold true?  If gravity is merely a side-product, what is the causation of it (exactly), what is the frequency of the energy, and how is it temperature related (the paper says things are tied together).  Fundamental questions waiting to be asked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read the description of the paper from the hammock physicist ( I studied computers in university , took enough relativity in ....a philosophy class... to know that I do n't have near enough math to swallow this in full .
But the description reads easily enough .
It basically takes a backwards approach .
Its not a slam dunk , as stated there is a lot of hand waving ( details left to fill in ) but it covers a very broad range of physics , most of which fits nicely already .
There are a few litmus tests that will be applied .
Does it predict anything , and do those predictions hold true ?
If gravity is merely a side-product , what is the causation of it ( exactly ) , what is the frequency of the energy , and how is it temperature related ( the paper says things are tied together ) .
Fundamental questions waiting to be asked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read the description of the paper from the hammock physicist (I studied computers in university, took enough relativity in ....a philosophy class... to know that I don't have near enough math to swallow this in full.
But the description reads easily enough.
It basically takes a backwards approach.
Its not a slam dunk, as stated there is a lot of hand waving (details left to fill in) but it covers a very broad range of physics, most of which fits nicely already.
There are a few litmus tests that will be applied.
Does it predict anything, and do those predictions hold true?
If gravity is merely a side-product, what is the causation of it (exactly), what is the frequency of the energy, and how is it temperature related (the paper says things are tied together).
Fundamental questions waiting to be asked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30720374</id>
	<title>Re:Summary of comments</title>
	<author>hldn</author>
	<datestamp>1263151620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this fails on a couple points.</p><blockquote><div><p>given that the volume of the universe is infinite there must be an infinite number of worlds.</p></div></blockquote><p>infinite volume universe does mean infinite amount of matter therefore there are not necessarily an infinite number of worlds.  but lets ignore that for a moment and move on.</p><blockquote><div><p>But not all of them are populated; therefore only a finite number are.</p></div></blockquote><p>one does not follow from the other.  lets look at a similar example from mathematics.  there are an infinite amount of numbers, but not all of them are positive integers; therefore there is only a finite number of positive integers.  this is wrong however, because we know there to be an infinite number of positive integers.</p><p>given infinite worlds, either none of them are populated or an infinite number of them are populated.  these are the only two possibilities.  since we know that the earth is populated, it follows that an infinite number must also be populated.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>this fails on a couple points.given that the volume of the universe is infinite there must be an infinite number of worlds.infinite volume universe does mean infinite amount of matter therefore there are not necessarily an infinite number of worlds .
but lets ignore that for a moment and move on.But not all of them are populated ; therefore only a finite number are.one does not follow from the other .
lets look at a similar example from mathematics .
there are an infinite amount of numbers , but not all of them are positive integers ; therefore there is only a finite number of positive integers .
this is wrong however , because we know there to be an infinite number of positive integers.given infinite worlds , either none of them are populated or an infinite number of them are populated .
these are the only two possibilities .
since we know that the earth is populated , it follows that an infinite number must also be populated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this fails on a couple points.given that the volume of the universe is infinite there must be an infinite number of worlds.infinite volume universe does mean infinite amount of matter therefore there are not necessarily an infinite number of worlds.
but lets ignore that for a moment and move on.But not all of them are populated; therefore only a finite number are.one does not follow from the other.
lets look at a similar example from mathematics.
there are an infinite amount of numbers, but not all of them are positive integers; therefore there is only a finite number of positive integers.
this is wrong however, because we know there to be an infinite number of positive integers.given infinite worlds, either none of them are populated or an infinite number of them are populated.
these are the only two possibilities.
since we know that the earth is populated, it follows that an infinite number must also be populated.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717220</id>
	<title>Re:Summary of comments</title>
	<author>astar</author>
	<datestamp>1263119640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ha Ha, try this</p><p>looks to me like holographic theory is pretty much a causality model.  there are hundreds of those and they have a hard time integrating into TOES.  I figure causality at this point is mainly a philosophical inquiry.  for instance, it looks to me that the dominate physics causality model goes something like:  "Now" is a thin shell advancing in time and it contains all the causes for the next "Now".  If you are a reductionist, this probably sounds fine, but if you are not, it is pretty silly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ha Ha , try thislooks to me like holographic theory is pretty much a causality model .
there are hundreds of those and they have a hard time integrating into TOES .
I figure causality at this point is mainly a philosophical inquiry .
for instance , it looks to me that the dominate physics causality model goes something like : " Now " is a thin shell advancing in time and it contains all the causes for the next " Now " .
If you are a reductionist , this probably sounds fine , but if you are not , it is pretty silly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ha Ha, try thislooks to me like holographic theory is pretty much a causality model.
there are hundreds of those and they have a hard time integrating into TOES.
I figure causality at this point is mainly a philosophical inquiry.
for instance, it looks to me that the dominate physics causality model goes something like:  "Now" is a thin shell advancing in time and it contains all the causes for the next "Now".
If you are a reductionist, this probably sounds fine, but if you are not, it is pretty silly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30720536</id>
	<title>Re:My crazy idea about gravity.</title>
	<author>OrangeCatholic</author>
	<datestamp>1263240120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;To get black holes to work you have to twiddle with general relativity and accept that values in a solution can by infinite in value, ie, density and gravity at the singularity. I think it was Einstein himself who said that if your math give you an infinite in your solution then there is something wrong in your math.
<br> <br>
I don't see that "infinite gravity" has any practical meaning over, say, "infinite speed" (impossible) or "infinite mass" (also impossible).
<br> <br>
The problem may be that you are trying to apply GR behind the event horizon.  That could screw up anybody's math.
<br> <br>
&gt;Add in to that the issues about entropy and information loss, its ugly.
<br> <br>
I'm still working on these, but the fact that I can't grok them after months of study implies to me that they are nothing but red herrings.  Who cares if black holes destroy information?  Really.  Of all the things for people to waste their time on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; To get black holes to work you have to twiddle with general relativity and accept that values in a solution can by infinite in value , ie , density and gravity at the singularity .
I think it was Einstein himself who said that if your math give you an infinite in your solution then there is something wrong in your math .
I do n't see that " infinite gravity " has any practical meaning over , say , " infinite speed " ( impossible ) or " infinite mass " ( also impossible ) .
The problem may be that you are trying to apply GR behind the event horizon .
That could screw up anybody 's math .
&gt; Add in to that the issues about entropy and information loss , its ugly .
I 'm still working on these , but the fact that I ca n't grok them after months of study implies to me that they are nothing but red herrings .
Who cares if black holes destroy information ?
Really. Of all the things for people to waste their time on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;To get black holes to work you have to twiddle with general relativity and accept that values in a solution can by infinite in value, ie, density and gravity at the singularity.
I think it was Einstein himself who said that if your math give you an infinite in your solution then there is something wrong in your math.
I don't see that "infinite gravity" has any practical meaning over, say, "infinite speed" (impossible) or "infinite mass" (also impossible).
The problem may be that you are trying to apply GR behind the event horizon.
That could screw up anybody's math.
&gt;Add in to that the issues about entropy and information loss, its ugly.
I'm still working on these, but the fact that I can't grok them after months of study implies to me that they are nothing but red herrings.
Who cares if black holes destroy information?
Really.  Of all the things for people to waste their time on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717626</id>
	<title>Re:My crazy idea about gravity.</title>
	<author>PinkyGigglebrain</author>
	<datestamp>1263122160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've come across several re-thinks of the current theory that gravity, currently believed to be a distortion of space/time caused by mass, is wrong.  The current theory has some glitches in it, like black holes, dark matter and dark energy.<br> <br>To get black holes to work you have to twiddle with general relativity and accept that values in a solution can by infinite in value, ie, density and gravity at the singularity. I think it was Einstein himself who said that if your math give you an infinite in your solution then there is something wrong in your math.  Add in to that the issues about entropy and information loss, its ugly.<br> <br>Dark matter is a kludge to get the math to match the observations.  I think the reasoning goes something like this "The stuff around that galaxy acts like the galaxy is more massive than it looks according to how how gravity works, and since  we KNOW EXACTLY how gravity works there must by something there that can't be detected, doesn't affect propagation of light or interact with anything else except through it's gravity.  I know!! Dark Matter!!.  I'll believe it when they detect it.<br> <br>Then there is "Dark Energy", which has properties that are the exact opposite of dark matter, where dark matter has gravity and pulls dark energy is pushing everything away from everything else.  Even Einstein ditched adding a "cosmological constant" into his equations, and the observations show that not only is it there but its not a constant, it has changing over time.<br> <br>What makes more sense to me is if the force we call "gravity" is caused by tiny shock waves caused by some form of quantum event that acts just like a ripple on a pond, that is it imparts momentum to an object that is parallel to and with the same vector as its propagation, like a wave that pushes you in the direction it is traveling.  On a macroscopic scale the field would appear smooth and continuous, sort of how dark energy is supposed to behave.<br> <br>Since the events that cause the ripples occur everywhere if you are floating in space away from any mass then the total perceived effect would be zero since the waves coming from one direction would cancel out the force of waves from the opposite direction.  But if you have a mass near you it would shield you from some of the waves on that side and the waves coming from the side without the mass would be a little stronger and push you towards the mass, the more mass the more it shields.<br> <br>Looking at gravity this way might clear up some of the conundrums.<br> <br>And a final point, the physics that got us to the moon and mars was mostly classic Newtonian.  The math for Newtonian gravity works on a human scale, then we need Einsteinian gravity to explain the really big structures of the Universe but neither of them work at the quantum scale, which means that none of the equations are "The Answer", the Grand Unified Theory will be a step closer.<br> <br>Try googling about the acceleration anomalies of Pioneer 10 and Allais effect, intersting reading.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've come across several re-thinks of the current theory that gravity , currently believed to be a distortion of space/time caused by mass , is wrong .
The current theory has some glitches in it , like black holes , dark matter and dark energy .
To get black holes to work you have to twiddle with general relativity and accept that values in a solution can by infinite in value , ie , density and gravity at the singularity .
I think it was Einstein himself who said that if your math give you an infinite in your solution then there is something wrong in your math .
Add in to that the issues about entropy and information loss , its ugly .
Dark matter is a kludge to get the math to match the observations .
I think the reasoning goes something like this " The stuff around that galaxy acts like the galaxy is more massive than it looks according to how how gravity works , and since we KNOW EXACTLY how gravity works there must by something there that ca n't be detected , does n't affect propagation of light or interact with anything else except through it 's gravity .
I know ! !
Dark Matter ! ! .
I 'll believe it when they detect it .
Then there is " Dark Energy " , which has properties that are the exact opposite of dark matter , where dark matter has gravity and pulls dark energy is pushing everything away from everything else .
Even Einstein ditched adding a " cosmological constant " into his equations , and the observations show that not only is it there but its not a constant , it has changing over time .
What makes more sense to me is if the force we call " gravity " is caused by tiny shock waves caused by some form of quantum event that acts just like a ripple on a pond , that is it imparts momentum to an object that is parallel to and with the same vector as its propagation , like a wave that pushes you in the direction it is traveling .
On a macroscopic scale the field would appear smooth and continuous , sort of how dark energy is supposed to behave .
Since the events that cause the ripples occur everywhere if you are floating in space away from any mass then the total perceived effect would be zero since the waves coming from one direction would cancel out the force of waves from the opposite direction .
But if you have a mass near you it would shield you from some of the waves on that side and the waves coming from the side without the mass would be a little stronger and push you towards the mass , the more mass the more it shields .
Looking at gravity this way might clear up some of the conundrums .
And a final point , the physics that got us to the moon and mars was mostly classic Newtonian .
The math for Newtonian gravity works on a human scale , then we need Einsteinian gravity to explain the really big structures of the Universe but neither of them work at the quantum scale , which means that none of the equations are " The Answer " , the Grand Unified Theory will be a step closer .
Try googling about the acceleration anomalies of Pioneer 10 and Allais effect , intersting reading .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've come across several re-thinks of the current theory that gravity, currently believed to be a distortion of space/time caused by mass, is wrong.
The current theory has some glitches in it, like black holes, dark matter and dark energy.
To get black holes to work you have to twiddle with general relativity and accept that values in a solution can by infinite in value, ie, density and gravity at the singularity.
I think it was Einstein himself who said that if your math give you an infinite in your solution then there is something wrong in your math.
Add in to that the issues about entropy and information loss, its ugly.
Dark matter is a kludge to get the math to match the observations.
I think the reasoning goes something like this "The stuff around that galaxy acts like the galaxy is more massive than it looks according to how how gravity works, and since  we KNOW EXACTLY how gravity works there must by something there that can't be detected, doesn't affect propagation of light or interact with anything else except through it's gravity.
I know!!
Dark Matter!!.
I'll believe it when they detect it.
Then there is "Dark Energy", which has properties that are the exact opposite of dark matter, where dark matter has gravity and pulls dark energy is pushing everything away from everything else.
Even Einstein ditched adding a "cosmological constant" into his equations, and the observations show that not only is it there but its not a constant, it has changing over time.
What makes more sense to me is if the force we call "gravity" is caused by tiny shock waves caused by some form of quantum event that acts just like a ripple on a pond, that is it imparts momentum to an object that is parallel to and with the same vector as its propagation, like a wave that pushes you in the direction it is traveling.
On a macroscopic scale the field would appear smooth and continuous, sort of how dark energy is supposed to behave.
Since the events that cause the ripples occur everywhere if you are floating in space away from any mass then the total perceived effect would be zero since the waves coming from one direction would cancel out the force of waves from the opposite direction.
But if you have a mass near you it would shield you from some of the waves on that side and the waves coming from the side without the mass would be a little stronger and push you towards the mass, the more mass the more it shields.
Looking at gravity this way might clear up some of the conundrums.
And a final point, the physics that got us to the moon and mars was mostly classic Newtonian.
The math for Newtonian gravity works on a human scale, then we need Einsteinian gravity to explain the really big structures of the Universe but neither of them work at the quantum scale, which means that none of the equations are "The Answer", the Grand Unified Theory will be a step closer.
Try googling about the acceleration anomalies of Pioneer 10 and Allais effect, intersting reading.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717612</id>
	<title>Its energy</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1263122040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We told you earthlings this a long time ago. Do pay attention if you want to get of the rock.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We told you earthlings this a long time ago .
Do pay attention if you want to get of the rock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We told you earthlings this a long time ago.
Do pay attention if you want to get of the rock.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30722928</id>
	<title>Re:Textbooks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263224220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Damn it. I knew I should have sold back my college Physics textbooks when I had the chance...</p></div><p>If theory proves to be even vaguely correct, it's not only the college physics textbooks you'll be scrapping.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn it .
I knew I should have sold back my college Physics textbooks when I had the chance...If theory proves to be even vaguely correct , it 's not only the college physics textbooks you 'll be scrapping .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn it.
I knew I should have sold back my college Physics textbooks when I had the chance...If theory proves to be even vaguely correct, it's not only the college physics textbooks you'll be scrapping.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30721294</id>
	<title>i'm afraid</title>
	<author>shnull</author>
	<datestamp>1263210180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i have some serious catching up to do on physics</htmltext>
<tokenext>i have some serious catching up to do on physics</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i have some serious catching up to do on physics</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717546</id>
	<title>How does that relate to the work of Tajmar?</title>
	<author>master\_p</author>
	<datestamp>1263121560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tajmar and DeMatos discovered that in a rotating superconductor, a counter-gravity force can be produced. How does that relate to this theory?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tajmar and DeMatos discovered that in a rotating superconductor , a counter-gravity force can be produced .
How does that relate to this theory ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tajmar and DeMatos discovered that in a rotating superconductor, a counter-gravity force can be produced.
How does that relate to this theory?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716782</id>
	<title>Golden ratio</title>
	<author>ylikone</author>
	<datestamp>1263116700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a gut feeling that golden ratio will fit into all this somewhere.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a gut feeling that golden ratio will fit into all this somewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a gut feeling that golden ratio will fit into all this somewhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717782</id>
	<title>Re:Summary of comments</title>
	<author>rrohbeck</author>
	<datestamp>1263123360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Advanced physics is all a big hoax. I have some emails to prove that they forged all their data. Frauds!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Advanced physics is all a big hoax .
I have some emails to prove that they forged all their data .
Frauds !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Advanced physics is all a big hoax.
I have some emails to prove that they forged all their data.
Frauds!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30726968</id>
	<title>I heard a variant of this back in the mid 80s</title>
	<author>Ungrounded Lightning</author>
	<datestamp>1263241980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Word of mouth, unfortunately.  It was called "information mechanics" (which has been used to describe several unrelated things as well).  Then the word was that it not only explained gravity but derived several of the "fundamental" constants from others to some large number (9?) of significant digits.</p><p>The thing I do remember from the not-fully-grokked explanation was that gravity in the theory was related to the smaller amount of information needed to represent the relative positions of objects when they are closer together and the energy involved in the information in question.</p><p>And according to the guy who mentioned it, the original work was very hard to follow.</p><p>I'm wondering if this is the same stuff - either finally presented by the original guy in a form that is more readily accepted by the physics community, rediscovered by someone more articulate, or more fully worked out by either or both.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Word of mouth , unfortunately .
It was called " information mechanics " ( which has been used to describe several unrelated things as well ) .
Then the word was that it not only explained gravity but derived several of the " fundamental " constants from others to some large number ( 9 ?
) of significant digits.The thing I do remember from the not-fully-grokked explanation was that gravity in the theory was related to the smaller amount of information needed to represent the relative positions of objects when they are closer together and the energy involved in the information in question.And according to the guy who mentioned it , the original work was very hard to follow.I 'm wondering if this is the same stuff - either finally presented by the original guy in a form that is more readily accepted by the physics community , rediscovered by someone more articulate , or more fully worked out by either or both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Word of mouth, unfortunately.
It was called "information mechanics" (which has been used to describe several unrelated things as well).
Then the word was that it not only explained gravity but derived several of the "fundamental" constants from others to some large number (9?
) of significant digits.The thing I do remember from the not-fully-grokked explanation was that gravity in the theory was related to the smaller amount of information needed to represent the relative positions of objects when they are closer together and the energy involved in the information in question.And according to the guy who mentioned it, the original work was very hard to follow.I'm wondering if this is the same stuff - either finally presented by the original guy in a form that is more readily accepted by the physics community, rediscovered by someone more articulate, or more fully worked out by either or both.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719194</id>
	<title>Re:Summary of comments</title>
	<author>Ralph Spoilsport</author>
	<datestamp>1263136380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you forgot one - my favourite:
<p>
<i>You are all wrong because the universe is a giant plutonium atom.</i>
</p><p>
RS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you forgot one - my favourite : You are all wrong because the universe is a giant plutonium atom .
RS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you forgot one - my favourite:

You are all wrong because the universe is a giant plutonium atom.
RS</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717714</id>
	<title>Fundamental feature of the universe?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263122880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If gravity is no longer available as a fundamental feature of the universe... does that mean it's now a premium feature? Do I have to pay extra for that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If gravity is no longer available as a fundamental feature of the universe... does that mean it 's now a premium feature ?
Do I have to pay extra for that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If gravity is no longer available as a fundamental feature of the universe... does that mean it's now a premium feature?
Do I have to pay extra for that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719860</id>
	<title>Can This Theory Support Black Holes?</title>
	<author>lcreech</author>
	<datestamp>1263144420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think not, I had this idea over 20 years ago that gravity was a a secondary effect of interactions of energy and matter, that in reality there are no black holes. Gravity lenses yes, but black holes no. Given the evidence in recent years supporting the existence of black holes I am not so sure anymore. But it does have some interesting predictions that better match observable reality, for instance a decrease in wavelength  with increased entropy at the atomic level. Taking this theory one step further is the idea that there are no innate (attractive) forces. That forces are all reactive, which has even larger implications that just Gravity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think not , I had this idea over 20 years ago that gravity was a a secondary effect of interactions of energy and matter , that in reality there are no black holes .
Gravity lenses yes , but black holes no .
Given the evidence in recent years supporting the existence of black holes I am not so sure anymore .
But it does have some interesting predictions that better match observable reality , for instance a decrease in wavelength with increased entropy at the atomic level .
Taking this theory one step further is the idea that there are no innate ( attractive ) forces .
That forces are all reactive , which has even larger implications that just Gravity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think not, I had this idea over 20 years ago that gravity was a a secondary effect of interactions of energy and matter, that in reality there are no black holes.
Gravity lenses yes, but black holes no.
Given the evidence in recent years supporting the existence of black holes I am not so sure anymore.
But it does have some interesting predictions that better match observable reality, for instance a decrease in wavelength  with increased entropy at the atomic level.
Taking this theory one step further is the idea that there are no innate (attractive) forces.
That forces are all reactive, which has even larger implications that just Gravity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716738</id>
	<title>Stop posting articles from arXiv!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263116400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I couldn't begin to assess how plausible this theory is; neither could most of the people on Slashdot. However, I do know the arXiv is not a peer-reviewed journal, which mean that we can't even rely on the peer-review system to gain information on how sound the underlying research is. Many excellent publications appear on arXiv before being published in excellent journals, but some fairly questionable research ends up there as well.</p><p>Rather than post completely uninformed comments on the subject, leave that to people in the field.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could n't begin to assess how plausible this theory is ; neither could most of the people on Slashdot .
However , I do know the arXiv is not a peer-reviewed journal , which mean that we ca n't even rely on the peer-review system to gain information on how sound the underlying research is .
Many excellent publications appear on arXiv before being published in excellent journals , but some fairly questionable research ends up there as well.Rather than post completely uninformed comments on the subject , leave that to people in the field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I couldn't begin to assess how plausible this theory is; neither could most of the people on Slashdot.
However, I do know the arXiv is not a peer-reviewed journal, which mean that we can't even rely on the peer-review system to gain information on how sound the underlying research is.
Many excellent publications appear on arXiv before being published in excellent journals, but some fairly questionable research ends up there as well.Rather than post completely uninformed comments on the subject, leave that to people in the field.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30720130</id>
	<title>Today's xkcd seems relevant here...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263148320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://xkcd.com/687/" title="xkcd.com" rel="nofollow">Dimensional Analysis</a> [xkcd.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dimensional Analysis [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dimensional Analysis [xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717330</id>
	<title>Re:What is "information"? (In that context.)</title>
	<author>FooAtWFU</author>
	<datestamp>1263120360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Dude! Information is a perfectly useful theoretical property in theoretical physics, directly related to entropy.
Observe, for instance, all the cool stuff Stephen Hawking has done is related to black hole entropy in some manner or another.
(Black holes have to have entropy, otherwise you could violate the second law of thermodynamics by tossing stuff into them.... but if they have entropy, they should emit radiation.... hey, guys, look, a way for black holes to emit radiation and evaporate!!)
</p><p>
As Jacob Bekenstein put it, the trend in physics is to "regard the physical world as made of information, with energy and matter as incidentals." (Bekenstein came up with the Bekenstein bound, a fundamental limit on the amount of information/entropy which can be contained within a space. If you could come up with a system with more entropy in a given space, then you might be able to violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics by tossing it into a black hole.)
</p><p>
In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of <b>information</b> in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings.<br>
In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of <b>entropy</b> in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings.<br>
<b>Same darned thing.</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude !
Information is a perfectly useful theoretical property in theoretical physics , directly related to entropy .
Observe , for instance , all the cool stuff Stephen Hawking has done is related to black hole entropy in some manner or another .
( Black holes have to have entropy , otherwise you could violate the second law of thermodynamics by tossing stuff into them.... but if they have entropy , they should emit radiation.... hey , guys , look , a way for black holes to emit radiation and evaporate ! !
) As Jacob Bekenstein put it , the trend in physics is to " regard the physical world as made of information , with energy and matter as incidentals .
" ( Bekenstein came up with the Bekenstein bound , a fundamental limit on the amount of information/entropy which can be contained within a space .
If you could come up with a system with more entropy in a given space , then you might be able to violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics by tossing it into a black hole .
) In his theory , gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of information in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings .
In his theory , gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of entropy in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings .
Same darned thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Dude!
Information is a perfectly useful theoretical property in theoretical physics, directly related to entropy.
Observe, for instance, all the cool stuff Stephen Hawking has done is related to black hole entropy in some manner or another.
(Black holes have to have entropy, otherwise you could violate the second law of thermodynamics by tossing stuff into them.... but if they have entropy, they should emit radiation.... hey, guys, look, a way for black holes to emit radiation and evaporate!!
)

As Jacob Bekenstein put it, the trend in physics is to "regard the physical world as made of information, with energy and matter as incidentals.
" (Bekenstein came up with the Bekenstein bound, a fundamental limit on the amount of information/entropy which can be contained within a space.
If you could come up with a system with more entropy in a given space, then you might be able to violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics by tossing it into a black hole.
)

In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of information in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings.
In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of entropy in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings.
Same darned thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717048</id>
	<title>Re:Summary of comments</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1263118380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spoil sport!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spoil sport !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spoil sport!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717940</id>
	<title>Re:Stop posting articles from arXiv!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263124440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>haha, bullshit, if where you worked in industry was more meritocratic than academia that just means you didn't work at very good institution</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>haha , bullshit , if where you worked in industry was more meritocratic than academia that just means you did n't work at very good institution</tokentext>
<sentencetext>haha, bullshit, if where you worked in industry was more meritocratic than academia that just means you didn't work at very good institution</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717800</id>
	<title>Re:Stop posting articles from arXiv!</title>
	<author>liquidpele</author>
	<datestamp>1263123480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://xkcd.com/664/" title="xkcd.com">http://xkcd.com/664/</a> [xkcd.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //xkcd.com/664/ [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://xkcd.com/664/ [xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718410</id>
	<title>Practical implications?</title>
	<author>ascari</author>
	<datestamp>1263127680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So does the end of gravity mean we will all be flung off into space? If so, I have to say Verlinde sucks!</htmltext>
<tokenext>So does the end of gravity mean we will all be flung off into space ?
If so , I have to say Verlinde sucks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So does the end of gravity mean we will all be flung off into space?
If so, I have to say Verlinde sucks!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716812</id>
	<title>Re:Summary of comments</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1263117000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>YOU ARE EDUCATED STUPID!</p></div><p>No, PlayStation fans are educated stupid. Wii come from the <a href="http://pasareppu.fateback.com/joke/gamecube.html" title="fateback.com" rel="nofollow">GameCube</a> [fateback.com]. Animal Crossing is 24 simultaneous days in one.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>YOU ARE EDUCATED STUPID ! No , PlayStation fans are educated stupid .
Wii come from the GameCube [ fateback.com ] .
Animal Crossing is 24 simultaneous days in one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>YOU ARE EDUCATED STUPID!No, PlayStation fans are educated stupid.
Wii come from the GameCube [fateback.com].
Animal Crossing is 24 simultaneous days in one.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717978</id>
	<title>Re:Stop posting articles from arXiv!</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1263124800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Rather than post completely uninformed comments on the subject, leave that to people in the field.</p></div><p>You know I always count on people in the field making <strong>informed</strong> comments. I turn to slashdot <strong>for</strong> uninformed comments. Now you have gone and tried to discourage all the nutjobs who will think that this is evidence that supports their favorite wingnut theory about how the universe works.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rather than post completely uninformed comments on the subject , leave that to people in the field.You know I always count on people in the field making informed comments .
I turn to slashdot for uninformed comments .
Now you have gone and tried to discourage all the nutjobs who will think that this is evidence that supports their favorite wingnut theory about how the universe works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rather than post completely uninformed comments on the subject, leave that to people in the field.You know I always count on people in the field making informed comments.
I turn to slashdot for uninformed comments.
Now you have gone and tried to discourage all the nutjobs who will think that this is evidence that supports their favorite wingnut theory about how the universe works.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716960</id>
	<title>Comments from Lubos Motl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263117720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubos\_Motl" title="wikipedia.org">Lubos Motl</a> [wikipedia.org] (string theorist, formerly at Harvard), has recently blogged about this:
<a href="http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/01/gravity-as-holographic-entropic-force.html" title="blogspot.com">http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/01/gravity-as-holographic-entropic-force.html</a> [blogspot.com].  His conclusion is "I remain undecided".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lubos Motl [ wikipedia.org ] ( string theorist , formerly at Harvard ) , has recently blogged about this : http : //motls.blogspot.com/2010/01/gravity-as-holographic-entropic-force.html [ blogspot.com ] .
His conclusion is " I remain undecided " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lubos Motl [wikipedia.org] (string theorist, formerly at Harvard), has recently blogged about this:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/01/gravity-as-holographic-entropic-force.html [blogspot.com].
His conclusion is "I remain undecided".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30721028</id>
	<title>Re:Stop posting articles from arXiv!</title>
	<author>Ozlanthos</author>
	<datestamp>1263205320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That seems to me to summarize the true suck of it, seeing as the products of the "peer review process" are what we later pass off as "knowledge". When the fallacy comes to an end, it puts the same false fact/ dead fish stink on all "science" in the mind of the public. It seems clear to me though that you are part of some group whose worry for industry job-security is virtually nil. In the job market I work in politics is the rule and your merits be damned if you aren't kissing the right ass!
<br>
<br>
-Oz</htmltext>
<tokenext>That seems to me to summarize the true suck of it , seeing as the products of the " peer review process " are what we later pass off as " knowledge " .
When the fallacy comes to an end , it puts the same false fact/ dead fish stink on all " science " in the mind of the public .
It seems clear to me though that you are part of some group whose worry for industry job-security is virtually nil .
In the job market I work in politics is the rule and your merits be damned if you are n't kissing the right ass !
-Oz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That seems to me to summarize the true suck of it, seeing as the products of the "peer review process" are what we later pass off as "knowledge".
When the fallacy comes to an end, it puts the same false fact/ dead fish stink on all "science" in the mind of the public.
It seems clear to me though that you are part of some group whose worry for industry job-security is virtually nil.
In the job market I work in politics is the rule and your merits be damned if you aren't kissing the right ass!
-Oz</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717810</id>
	<title>It is being tested- more or less</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263123480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the LHC fails to find the Higgs particle then the current theories of gravity are probably unworkable.</p><p>Nice timing dude - propose the theory at a time when the scientific community will be scrabbling around for answers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>One way to beat the system<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the LHC fails to find the Higgs particle then the current theories of gravity are probably unworkable.Nice timing dude - propose the theory at a time when the scientific community will be scrabbling around for answers ...One way to beat the system ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the LHC fails to find the Higgs particle then the current theories of gravity are probably unworkable.Nice timing dude - propose the theory at a time when the scientific community will be scrabbling around for answers ...One way to beat the system ....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717960</id>
	<title>Re:Stop posting articles from arXiv!</title>
	<author>iluvcapra</author>
	<datestamp>1263124560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's your degree in?  Ecofeminism, or postmodern comparative religion?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's your degree in ?
Ecofeminism , or postmodern comparative religion ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's your degree in?
Ecofeminism, or postmodern comparative religion?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718686</id>
	<title>Question</title>
	<author>7-Vodka</author>
	<datestamp>1263130080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, </p><p>
If gravity is based on some entropic value and not 'mass', shouldn't this immediately lead to testable hypotheses? Eg. Change the entropy of something by a different value than mass and re-weigh it.
</p><p>
Or, he's just found a new way to 'describe' mass. In which case the above experiment can never be done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , If gravity is based on some entropic value and not 'mass ' , should n't this immediately lead to testable hypotheses ?
Eg. Change the entropy of something by a different value than mass and re-weigh it .
Or , he 's just found a new way to 'describe ' mass .
In which case the above experiment can never be done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, 
If gravity is based on some entropic value and not 'mass', shouldn't this immediately lead to testable hypotheses?
Eg. Change the entropy of something by a different value than mass and re-weigh it.
Or, he's just found a new way to 'describe' mass.
In which case the above experiment can never be done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716674</id>
	<title>Just because the math works doesn't mean it's true</title>
	<author>XanC</author>
	<datestamp>1263115860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But it sure sounds promising.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But it sure sounds promising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But it sure sounds promising.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30729206</id>
	<title>Re:Stop posting articles from arXiv!</title>
	<author>geezer nerd</author>
	<datestamp>1263206220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Never did I see more petty backstabbing peer-to-peer as I encountered in my relatively short stint as an academic. Talk about nasty!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Never did I see more petty backstabbing peer-to-peer as I encountered in my relatively short stint as an academic .
Talk about nasty !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never did I see more petty backstabbing peer-to-peer as I encountered in my relatively short stint as an academic.
Talk about nasty!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718684</id>
	<title>Re:What is "information"? (In that context.)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263130020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the issue is... that you are talking about a "difference in concentration" of information or entropy in "empty space", which by definition is empty, so the concentration would be zero.  Now if there were a difference in magnitude of a "field" in empty space, that would be different.  Perhaps we could call this field a stress/energy tensor field, and determine a relationship of this field to the curvature of a Riemannian manifold representing spacetime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the issue is... that you are talking about a " difference in concentration " of information or entropy in " empty space " , which by definition is empty , so the concentration would be zero .
Now if there were a difference in magnitude of a " field " in empty space , that would be different .
Perhaps we could call this field a stress/energy tensor field , and determine a relationship of this field to the curvature of a Riemannian manifold representing spacetime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the issue is... that you are talking about a "difference in concentration" of information or entropy in "empty space", which by definition is empty, so the concentration would be zero.
Now if there were a difference in magnitude of a "field" in empty space, that would be different.
Perhaps we could call this field a stress/energy tensor field, and determine a relationship of this field to the curvature of a Riemannian manifold representing spacetime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716766</id>
	<title>I usually don't rant...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263116580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But 'here is two', um, seriously? English is my third language and I've yet to have problems with using is for singular and are for plural.</p><p>On a sidenote, it's interesting how tiny a force gravity ultimately is... The gravity effect of the whole...friggin...planet on your body can be countered with the atomic bonds in a comparatively meager rope. Fascinating really.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But 'here is two ' , um , seriously ?
English is my third language and I 've yet to have problems with using is for singular and are for plural.On a sidenote , it 's interesting how tiny a force gravity ultimately is... The gravity effect of the whole...friggin...planet on your body can be countered with the atomic bonds in a comparatively meager rope .
Fascinating really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But 'here is two', um, seriously?
English is my third language and I've yet to have problems with using is for singular and are for plural.On a sidenote, it's interesting how tiny a force gravity ultimately is... The gravity effect of the whole...friggin...planet on your body can be countered with the atomic bonds in a comparatively meager rope.
Fascinating really.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30727388</id>
	<title>You forgot one...</title>
	<author>nokiator</author>
	<datestamp>1263243180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This region of spacetime has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down. All unsaved objects will be lost.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This region of spacetime has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down .
All unsaved objects will be lost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This region of spacetime has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down.
All unsaved objects will be lost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718032</id>
	<title>I have and you are wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263125160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>While some fields are closed to some due to social or political reasons this is NOT all and you can almost always find someone to publish your poorly written rehash of what some Russian did 20 years ago. No it won't be Science or Nature but then again it shouldn't be. Peer review can be a pain but most reputable journals will allow you (and sometimes encourage you to) request a change of referee. I don't know what field you are in and maybe it has problems but don't think all of academia is a big popularity contest just because your field is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While some fields are closed to some due to social or political reasons this is NOT all and you can almost always find someone to publish your poorly written rehash of what some Russian did 20 years ago .
No it wo n't be Science or Nature but then again it should n't be .
Peer review can be a pain but most reputable journals will allow you ( and sometimes encourage you to ) request a change of referee .
I do n't know what field you are in and maybe it has problems but do n't think all of academia is a big popularity contest just because your field is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While some fields are closed to some due to social or political reasons this is NOT all and you can almost always find someone to publish your poorly written rehash of what some Russian did 20 years ago.
No it won't be Science or Nature but then again it shouldn't be.
Peer review can be a pain but most reputable journals will allow you (and sometimes encourage you to) request a change of referee.
I don't know what field you are in and maybe it has problems but don't think all of academia is a big popularity contest just because your field is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717762</id>
	<title>Re:Golden ratio</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263123240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anything that comes in discrete integer quantities can be turned into the Golden Ratio simply by laying out the Fibbonacci sequence.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anything that comes in discrete integer quantities can be turned into the Golden Ratio simply by laying out the Fibbonacci sequence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anything that comes in discrete integer quantities can be turned into the Golden Ratio simply by laying out the Fibbonacci sequence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30723258</id>
	<title>Re:First Pluto, then gravity</title>
	<author>ukemike</author>
	<datestamp>1263225960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yesterday mathematicians announced that seven will no longer be considered a number.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yesterday mathematicians announced that seven will no longer be considered a number .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yesterday mathematicians announced that seven will no longer be considered a number.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717990</id>
	<title>Re:Summary of comments</title>
	<author>digitig</author>
	<datestamp>1263124800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You forgot the racial, political and homophobic trolls. Something many of us <em>try</em> to do, of course.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot the racial , political and homophobic trolls .
Something many of us try to do , of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot the racial, political and homophobic trolls.
Something many of us try to do, of course.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718634</id>
	<title>gravity proven wrong</title>
	<author>OrangeTide</author>
	<datestamp>1263129600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this mean he is now a flying dutchman?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean he is now a flying dutchman ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean he is now a flying dutchman?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718384</id>
	<title>Re:Summary of comments</title>
	<author>ascari</author>
	<datestamp>1263127500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There.  That should save everyone some time.</p></div><p>
Not so fast, Mister. Where's the car analogy?
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There .
That should save everyone some time .
Not so fast , Mister .
Where 's the car analogy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There.
That should save everyone some time.
Not so fast, Mister.
Where's the car analogy?

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30720136</id>
	<title>Re:What is "information"? (In that context.)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263148380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There are a lot of smart physicists, its a shame more of them dont study philosophy so they have a grounding for their ideas.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's the stupidest comment I've read in a long time.</p><p>The last thing that any scientist needs is a grounding in handwaving.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a lot of smart physicists , its a shame more of them dont study philosophy so they have a grounding for their ideas.That 's the stupidest comment I 've read in a long time.The last thing that any scientist needs is a grounding in handwaving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a lot of smart physicists, its a shame more of them dont study philosophy so they have a grounding for their ideas.That's the stupidest comment I've read in a long time.The last thing that any scientist needs is a grounding in handwaving.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717682</id>
	<title>Re:way cool</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263122580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was me.</p><p>Posting as anon because I haven't registered.</p><p>- Xenu</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was me.Posting as anon because I have n't registered.- Xenu</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was me.Posting as anon because I haven't registered.- Xenu</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30720468</id>
	<title>Re:way cool</title>
	<author>OrangeCatholic</author>
	<datestamp>1263153000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It sounds like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic\_principle" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">holographic theory</a> [wikipedia.org] boils down to the idea that there's one <i>less</i> dimension than there really is.  Funny, I'd take it in the opposite direction.  I'd say that holographic theory is off by at least 2 dimensions or more.  Which means it's doubly bogus.
<br> <br>
Beware of people claiming to know what's on the opposite side of an event horizon.  Holographic theory is based on the idea that we MUST reconcile black holes with the rest of the universe.  And since black holes are really simple, the whole universe must be simple, too!</htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds like holographic theory [ wikipedia.org ] boils down to the idea that there 's one less dimension than there really is .
Funny , I 'd take it in the opposite direction .
I 'd say that holographic theory is off by at least 2 dimensions or more .
Which means it 's doubly bogus .
Beware of people claiming to know what 's on the opposite side of an event horizon .
Holographic theory is based on the idea that we MUST reconcile black holes with the rest of the universe .
And since black holes are really simple , the whole universe must be simple , too !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds like holographic theory [wikipedia.org] boils down to the idea that there's one less dimension than there really is.
Funny, I'd take it in the opposite direction.
I'd say that holographic theory is off by at least 2 dimensions or more.
Which means it's doubly bogus.
Beware of people claiming to know what's on the opposite side of an event horizon.
Holographic theory is based on the idea that we MUST reconcile black holes with the rest of the universe.
And since black holes are really simple, the whole universe must be simple, too!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717886</id>
	<title>Re:Summary of comments</title>
	<author>Ragzouken</author>
	<datestamp>1263124080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why must there be a finite number of populated worlds? There could be an infinite number of unpopulated worlds and an infinite number of populated worlds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why must there be a finite number of populated worlds ?
There could be an infinite number of unpopulated worlds and an infinite number of populated worlds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why must there be a finite number of populated worlds?
There could be an infinite number of unpopulated worlds and an infinite number of populated worlds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718540</id>
	<title>Re:Summary of comments</title>
	<author>MadMagician</author>
	<datestamp>1263128760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't neglect "gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of information." Plato was as good a physicist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't neglect " gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of information .
" Plato was as good a physicist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't neglect "gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of information.
" Plato was as good a physicist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718724</id>
	<title>OMG, the subGs were right!</title>
	<author>Pictish Prince</author>
	<datestamp>1263130500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The most fundamental force in the universe is not gravity - it's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church\_of\_the\_SubGenius#Slack" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">SLACK</a> [wikipedia.org]!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The most fundamental force in the universe is not gravity - it 's SLACK [ wikipedia.org ] !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The most fundamental force in the universe is not gravity - it's SLACK [wikipedia.org]!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30721234</id>
	<title>Interesting. Fully machian?</title>
	<author>tioda</author>
	<datestamp>1263209220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Gravity is something special given the the equality of inert mass and gravitational mass. It seems the ideas of this man are at least interesting to work with. It will be good to see if this makes gravity fully <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach's\_principle" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">machian</a> [wikipedia.org].  As asked in Newton's Principia, and not convincilly answered yet: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucket\_Argument" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">What would it happened if we rotate the fixed stars with respect to the bucket of water?</a> [wikipedia.org]
</p><p>
There is a lot of crackpottery here in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., but this guy does not seem the classic crackpotter.  It seems that this time we have seen in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. a real scientific breakthrough.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gravity is something special given the the equality of inert mass and gravitational mass .
It seems the ideas of this man are at least interesting to work with .
It will be good to see if this makes gravity fully machian [ wikipedia.org ] .
As asked in Newton 's Principia , and not convincilly answered yet : What would it happened if we rotate the fixed stars with respect to the bucket of water ?
[ wikipedia.org ] There is a lot of crackpottery here in /. , but this guy does not seem the classic crackpotter .
It seems that this time we have seen in / .
a real scientific breakthrough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Gravity is something special given the the equality of inert mass and gravitational mass.
It seems the ideas of this man are at least interesting to work with.
It will be good to see if this makes gravity fully machian [wikipedia.org].
As asked in Newton's Principia, and not convincilly answered yet: What would it happened if we rotate the fixed stars with respect to the bucket of water?
[wikipedia.org]

There is a lot of crackpottery here in /., but this guy does not seem the classic crackpotter.
It seems that this time we have seen in /.
a real scientific breakthrough.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719634</id>
	<title>Re:Stop posting articles from arXiv!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263141780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes... this explains what has been happening.<br>A bunch of idiots (with no integrity) can get in control of something and it screws it up for everyone else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes... this explains what has been happening.A bunch of idiots ( with no integrity ) can get in control of something and it screws it up for everyone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes... this explains what has been happening.A bunch of idiots (with no integrity) can get in control of something and it screws it up for everyone else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717176</id>
	<title>Re:Not at an all an expert but...</title>
	<author>TeknoHog</author>
	<datestamp>1263119280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> The upshot then is not that you get the right value for G at the end but that you get Newton's inverse square law (up to a scalar) which by itself would be really impressive even if one can't a priori get the value of G.
</p></div><p>
The inverse square relation comes easily from the fact of 3 spatial dimensions. The gravitational flux from a mass is spread out over a surface of a sphere, whose area is proportional to the square of the radius. It is a perfect analogy of electric fields.
</p><p>
It is possible to derive the same form in many different ways. It is a nice exercise to play with alternative theories of gravity, and see how they are similar or different. However, general relativity has a crucial deviation from the inverse square law, which results in the anomalous orbit of Mercury, for example. This does not mean GR is the final correct answer, of course.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The upshot then is not that you get the right value for G at the end but that you get Newton 's inverse square law ( up to a scalar ) which by itself would be really impressive even if one ca n't a priori get the value of G . The inverse square relation comes easily from the fact of 3 spatial dimensions .
The gravitational flux from a mass is spread out over a surface of a sphere , whose area is proportional to the square of the radius .
It is a perfect analogy of electric fields .
It is possible to derive the same form in many different ways .
It is a nice exercise to play with alternative theories of gravity , and see how they are similar or different .
However , general relativity has a crucial deviation from the inverse square law , which results in the anomalous orbit of Mercury , for example .
This does not mean GR is the final correct answer , of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The upshot then is not that you get the right value for G at the end but that you get Newton's inverse square law (up to a scalar) which by itself would be really impressive even if one can't a priori get the value of G.

The inverse square relation comes easily from the fact of 3 spatial dimensions.
The gravitational flux from a mass is spread out over a surface of a sphere, whose area is proportional to the square of the radius.
It is a perfect analogy of electric fields.
It is possible to derive the same form in many different ways.
It is a nice exercise to play with alternative theories of gravity, and see how they are similar or different.
However, general relativity has a crucial deviation from the inverse square law, which results in the anomalous orbit of Mercury, for example.
This does not mean GR is the final correct answer, of course.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717542</id>
	<title>Re:Testable, currently unseen predictions.</title>
	<author>Goaway</author>
	<datestamp>1263121500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By that standard, we would never again form a new scientific theory, as you seem to be forbidding anyone from presenting any ideas before they have a perfect working theory all figured out. The only way to clear that hurdle was for all new theories to emerge, fully-formed, from the forehead of a bionic clone of Albert Einstein.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By that standard , we would never again form a new scientific theory , as you seem to be forbidding anyone from presenting any ideas before they have a perfect working theory all figured out .
The only way to clear that hurdle was for all new theories to emerge , fully-formed , from the forehead of a bionic clone of Albert Einstein .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By that standard, we would never again form a new scientific theory, as you seem to be forbidding anyone from presenting any ideas before they have a perfect working theory all figured out.
The only way to clear that hurdle was for all new theories to emerge, fully-formed, from the forehead of a bionic clone of Albert Einstein.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716972</id>
	<title>Re:Stop posting articles from arXiv!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263117780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you've spent any time in academia, you'd know that peer review is a cruel joke.</p><p>It's more politics than science. It doesn't matter which country you're in, nor which college, university or lab you're affiliated with. It's all about making sure your paper says the right things to support the fucks (your "peers") who have managed to trick various corporate and government officials into giving them the large grants, especially when their research is total crap. Otherwise, you're ostracized.</p><p>After years of seeing the high-quality research of others basically shut out by the peer review process, I said "Fuck It" to academia and returned to industry. While there is lots of bullshit in industry, at least it is more of a true meritocracy than academia is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 've spent any time in academia , you 'd know that peer review is a cruel joke.It 's more politics than science .
It does n't matter which country you 're in , nor which college , university or lab you 're affiliated with .
It 's all about making sure your paper says the right things to support the fucks ( your " peers " ) who have managed to trick various corporate and government officials into giving them the large grants , especially when their research is total crap .
Otherwise , you 're ostracized.After years of seeing the high-quality research of others basically shut out by the peer review process , I said " Fuck It " to academia and returned to industry .
While there is lots of bullshit in industry , at least it is more of a true meritocracy than academia is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you've spent any time in academia, you'd know that peer review is a cruel joke.It's more politics than science.
It doesn't matter which country you're in, nor which college, university or lab you're affiliated with.
It's all about making sure your paper says the right things to support the fucks (your "peers") who have managed to trick various corporate and government officials into giving them the large grants, especially when their research is total crap.
Otherwise, you're ostracized.After years of seeing the high-quality research of others basically shut out by the peer review process, I said "Fuck It" to academia and returned to industry.
While there is lots of bullshit in industry, at least it is more of a true meritocracy than academia is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717344</id>
	<title>Re:Comments from Lubos Motl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263120360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lubos Motl is a joke in the physics community.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lubos Motl is a joke in the physics community .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lubos Motl is a joke in the physics community.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30725928</id>
	<title>Offtopic</title>
	<author>Pictish Prince</author>
	<datestamp>1263237840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How in Hell did they screw up the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. comment system so thoroughly?  The status widget says I have 147 full comments &amp; 419 hidden comments and there doesn't seem to be any way to get them except for the ones on the first page by clicking on them individually.  My browsing level is set to -1 so I should be getting just about everything, right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How in Hell did they screw up the / .
comment system so thoroughly ?
The status widget says I have 147 full comments &amp; 419 hidden comments and there does n't seem to be any way to get them except for the ones on the first page by clicking on them individually .
My browsing level is set to -1 so I should be getting just about everything , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How in Hell did they screw up the /.
comment system so thoroughly?
The status widget says I have 147 full comments &amp; 419 hidden comments and there doesn't seem to be any way to get them except for the ones on the first page by clicking on them individually.
My browsing level is set to -1 so I should be getting just about everything, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717368</id>
	<title>Potentially disastrous to science fiction writers</title>
	<author>Werthless5</author>
	<datestamp>1263120480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If gravity is truly not fundamental and works as described by the paper, then you can kiss the antigravity machine goodbye!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If gravity is truly not fundamental and works as described by the paper , then you can kiss the antigravity machine goodbye !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If gravity is truly not fundamental and works as described by the paper, then you can kiss the antigravity machine goodbye!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719474</id>
	<title>Re:Potentially disastrous to science fiction write</title>
	<author>SlappyBastard</author>
	<datestamp>1263139980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's the kicker though: forget anti-gravity altogether and start targeting the underlying forces to create a derivation that would be perceived as anti-gravity!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the kicker though : forget anti-gravity altogether and start targeting the underlying forces to create a derivation that would be perceived as anti-gravity !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's the kicker though: forget anti-gravity altogether and start targeting the underlying forces to create a derivation that would be perceived as anti-gravity!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30721568</id>
	<title>Re:Stop posting articles from arXiv!</title>
	<author>Frans Faase</author>
	<datestamp>1263213720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This often very true, even in the area of computer science and math. People who referee article often pass them to their PhD-students if the paper does not have a familiar name as one of the authors. And these PhD-students often haven't a clue what the article is really about. I got the impression that one of my papers was only accepted because it carried the name of a reasonably well-known professor, who didn't have any input on the article except for reading it once. I cannot remember if I did get any useful comments, maybe only the some general suggestions.</p><p>A good friend of mine, who published some leading articles in his research area, would often get three response. One of the reviewers would say the the article was very interesting, one would say that its okay, and one reviewer would simply state that the proposed idea had been tried before and didn't work, and that the article should be rejected. But from the comments of the last reviewer gave, it was clear that he hadn't understood the paper and the approach taken was slightly different from the one that was shown not to work. When the papers did get published (because he already had a good publish track-record) they often would be cite a lot after a number of years as being break-through articles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This often very true , even in the area of computer science and math .
People who referee article often pass them to their PhD-students if the paper does not have a familiar name as one of the authors .
And these PhD-students often have n't a clue what the article is really about .
I got the impression that one of my papers was only accepted because it carried the name of a reasonably well-known professor , who did n't have any input on the article except for reading it once .
I can not remember if I did get any useful comments , maybe only the some general suggestions.A good friend of mine , who published some leading articles in his research area , would often get three response .
One of the reviewers would say the the article was very interesting , one would say that its okay , and one reviewer would simply state that the proposed idea had been tried before and did n't work , and that the article should be rejected .
But from the comments of the last reviewer gave , it was clear that he had n't understood the paper and the approach taken was slightly different from the one that was shown not to work .
When the papers did get published ( because he already had a good publish track-record ) they often would be cite a lot after a number of years as being break-through articles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This often very true, even in the area of computer science and math.
People who referee article often pass them to their PhD-students if the paper does not have a familiar name as one of the authors.
And these PhD-students often haven't a clue what the article is really about.
I got the impression that one of my papers was only accepted because it carried the name of a reasonably well-known professor, who didn't have any input on the article except for reading it once.
I cannot remember if I did get any useful comments, maybe only the some general suggestions.A good friend of mine, who published some leading articles in his research area, would often get three response.
One of the reviewers would say the the article was very interesting, one would say that its okay, and one reviewer would simply state that the proposed idea had been tried before and didn't work, and that the article should be rejected.
But from the comments of the last reviewer gave, it was clear that he hadn't understood the paper and the approach taken was slightly different from the one that was shown not to work.
When the papers did get published (because he already had a good publish track-record) they often would be cite a lot after a number of years as being break-through articles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30729464</id>
	<title>Uncertainty principle</title>
	<author>Old Wolf</author>
	<datestamp>1263207060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Something I gained from reading this article: Verlinde posits that a finite region of space can only contain a finite amount of information. We can derive the uncertainty principle (something I've always found weird) from this: if a point particle had its properties known exactly, then the density of information at that infinitesimal point would be infinite.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Something I gained from reading this article : Verlinde posits that a finite region of space can only contain a finite amount of information .
We can derive the uncertainty principle ( something I 've always found weird ) from this : if a point particle had its properties known exactly , then the density of information at that infinitesimal point would be infinite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something I gained from reading this article: Verlinde posits that a finite region of space can only contain a finite amount of information.
We can derive the uncertainty principle (something I've always found weird) from this: if a point particle had its properties known exactly, then the density of information at that infinitesimal point would be infinite.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717652</id>
	<title>Re:Summary of comments</title>
	<author>Dachannien</author>
	<datestamp>1263122340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There. That should save everyone some time.</p></div><p>Unfortunately, the time I would have spent posting to this thread was instead spent looking at TIME CUBE.  By no definition of the phrase could I possibly be said to have "saved time".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There .
That should save everyone some time.Unfortunately , the time I would have spent posting to this thread was instead spent looking at TIME CUBE .
By no definition of the phrase could I possibly be said to have " saved time " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There.
That should save everyone some time.Unfortunately, the time I would have spent posting to this thread was instead spent looking at TIME CUBE.
By no definition of the phrase could I possibly be said to have "saved time".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717454</id>
	<title>Re:Stop posting articles from arXiv!</title>
	<author>node 3</author>
	<datestamp>1263120960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Rather than post completely uninformed comments on the subject, leave that to people in the field.</p></div><p>A million times, NO. Science is for everyone. That doesn't mean everyone is right, or everyone should be listened to, but *EVERYONE* has the right to talk about science, and even be wrong about science.</p><p>If instead, everyone was posting comments on the paper as part of the peer-review process, I'd agree. We want to weed out the comments there to those that sufficiently grasp the concepts involved. Hence the term, peer-review. Slashdot is not, however, peer-review. It's a news and social site for nerds. As such, it's entirely out of line to tell people not to comment on a story unless they are "people in the field".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rather than post completely uninformed comments on the subject , leave that to people in the field.A million times , NO .
Science is for everyone .
That does n't mean everyone is right , or everyone should be listened to , but * EVERYONE * has the right to talk about science , and even be wrong about science.If instead , everyone was posting comments on the paper as part of the peer-review process , I 'd agree .
We want to weed out the comments there to those that sufficiently grasp the concepts involved .
Hence the term , peer-review .
Slashdot is not , however , peer-review .
It 's a news and social site for nerds .
As such , it 's entirely out of line to tell people not to comment on a story unless they are " people in the field " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rather than post completely uninformed comments on the subject, leave that to people in the field.A million times, NO.
Science is for everyone.
That doesn't mean everyone is right, or everyone should be listened to, but *EVERYONE* has the right to talk about science, and even be wrong about science.If instead, everyone was posting comments on the paper as part of the peer-review process, I'd agree.
We want to weed out the comments there to those that sufficiently grasp the concepts involved.
Hence the term, peer-review.
Slashdot is not, however, peer-review.
It's a news and social site for nerds.
As such, it's entirely out of line to tell people not to comment on a story unless they are "people in the field".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719972</id>
	<title>Oblig XKCD</title>
	<author>snowwrestler</author>
	<datestamp>1263145920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://xkcd.com/552/" title="xkcd.com">http://xkcd.com/552/</a> [xkcd.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //xkcd.com/552/ [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://xkcd.com/552/ [xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718352</id>
	<title>Singularities and black holes?</title>
	<author>naasking</author>
	<datestamp>1263127260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What does this mean for singularities and black holes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What does this mean for singularities and black holes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does this mean for singularities and black holes?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717676</id>
	<title>Re:Stop posting articles from arXiv!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263122580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are definitively new in the industry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are definitively new in the industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are definitively new in the industry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718764</id>
	<title>Re:Stop posting articles from arXiv!</title>
	<author>notshannon</author>
	<datestamp>1263131040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me echo this sentiment.  I did my PhD in a esoteric corner of Number Theory.  In my first position after graduate school, I submitted a number of papers.  Waited a minimum of one year for rejections or impossible demands for revision.  The handful of others in my area refused to collaborate with me.  I left academia.</p><p>Seven years later, a student of one of these people who refused to collaborate submits a paper,<br>and somehow I get to be referee.  I turned it around reasonably quick, rejected because it overlooked many earlier works.</p><p>Later that year, I get a request from the student about the same paper, maybe revised, I didn't look too closely.  (He doesn't know I was referee for the previous time around.)  It has been conditionally accepted at another journal.</p><p>Funny, his papers get refereed in 3-6 months and mine took over a year, and only then after pestering editors.</p><p>The condition?  He has cited my multiply rejected preprint and the editors insist that it must<br>be put somewhere more stable than my personal website.  So I put it on arXiv.  Probably I should<br>have demanded that they publish it.</p><p>Thus was demonstrated to me partiality in the peer-review process.  It's more petty personal politics than big issue party politics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me echo this sentiment .
I did my PhD in a esoteric corner of Number Theory .
In my first position after graduate school , I submitted a number of papers .
Waited a minimum of one year for rejections or impossible demands for revision .
The handful of others in my area refused to collaborate with me .
I left academia.Seven years later , a student of one of these people who refused to collaborate submits a paper,and somehow I get to be referee .
I turned it around reasonably quick , rejected because it overlooked many earlier works.Later that year , I get a request from the student about the same paper , maybe revised , I did n't look too closely .
( He does n't know I was referee for the previous time around .
) It has been conditionally accepted at another journal.Funny , his papers get refereed in 3-6 months and mine took over a year , and only then after pestering editors.The condition ?
He has cited my multiply rejected preprint and the editors insist that it mustbe put somewhere more stable than my personal website .
So I put it on arXiv .
Probably I shouldhave demanded that they publish it.Thus was demonstrated to me partiality in the peer-review process .
It 's more petty personal politics than big issue party politics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me echo this sentiment.
I did my PhD in a esoteric corner of Number Theory.
In my first position after graduate school, I submitted a number of papers.
Waited a minimum of one year for rejections or impossible demands for revision.
The handful of others in my area refused to collaborate with me.
I left academia.Seven years later, a student of one of these people who refused to collaborate submits a paper,and somehow I get to be referee.
I turned it around reasonably quick, rejected because it overlooked many earlier works.Later that year, I get a request from the student about the same paper, maybe revised, I didn't look too closely.
(He doesn't know I was referee for the previous time around.
)  It has been conditionally accepted at another journal.Funny, his papers get refereed in 3-6 months and mine took over a year, and only then after pestering editors.The condition?
He has cited my multiply rejected preprint and the editors insist that it mustbe put somewhere more stable than my personal website.
So I put it on arXiv.
Probably I shouldhave demanded that they publish it.Thus was demonstrated to me partiality in the peer-review process.
It's more petty personal politics than big issue party politics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716858</id>
	<title>Re:Stop posting articles from arXiv!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263117180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod parent up, absolutely correct.</p><p>A fundamental theory of this sort MUST be peer reviewed before it's even worth discussing - lay evaluation is the same as no evaluation in such a specialized topic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up , absolutely correct.A fundamental theory of this sort MUST be peer reviewed before it 's even worth discussing - lay evaluation is the same as no evaluation in such a specialized topic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up, absolutely correct.A fundamental theory of this sort MUST be peer reviewed before it's even worth discussing - lay evaluation is the same as no evaluation in such a specialized topic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719008</id>
	<title>Re:Not at an all an expert but...</title>
	<author>glwtta</author>
	<datestamp>1263133740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The value for G comes out correctly if you enter for Abit the value corresponding to a Planck area.</p></div></blockquote><p>
What happens if you enter it for ASUS?
<br> <br>
(ok, so I don't have anything useful to contribute)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The value for G comes out correctly if you enter for Abit the value corresponding to a Planck area .
What happens if you enter it for ASUS ?
( ok , so I do n't have anything useful to contribute )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The value for G comes out correctly if you enter for Abit the value corresponding to a Planck area.
What happens if you enter it for ASUS?
(ok, so I don't have anything useful to contribute)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717374</id>
	<title>Re:Summary of comments</title>
	<author>abigor</author>
	<datestamp>1263120540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget "correlation is not causation!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget " correlation is not causation !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget "correlation is not causation!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717650</id>
	<title>What does this predict for the Higgs Boson?</title>
	<author>tp\_xyzzy</author>
	<datestamp>1263122280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is Higgs Boson still needed?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is Higgs Boson still needed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is Higgs Boson still needed?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717042</id>
	<title>Re:Summary of comments</title>
	<author>VJ42</author>
	<datestamp>1263118260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You forgot "the universe is just a figment of my imagination"...<br>
Which it is: given that the volume of the universe is infinite there must be an infinite number of worlds. But not all of them are populated; therefore only a finite number are. Any finite number divided by infinity is zero, therefore the average population of the Universe is zero, and so the total population must be zero. So anyone I meet must be a product of my deranged imagination.
<br>
<br>
Thank to Douglas Adams insight for the above.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot " the universe is just a figment of my imagination " .. . Which it is : given that the volume of the universe is infinite there must be an infinite number of worlds .
But not all of them are populated ; therefore only a finite number are .
Any finite number divided by infinity is zero , therefore the average population of the Universe is zero , and so the total population must be zero .
So anyone I meet must be a product of my deranged imagination .
Thank to Douglas Adams insight for the above .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot "the universe is just a figment of my imagination"...
Which it is: given that the volume of the universe is infinite there must be an infinite number of worlds.
But not all of them are populated; therefore only a finite number are.
Any finite number divided by infinity is zero, therefore the average population of the Universe is zero, and so the total population must be zero.
So anyone I meet must be a product of my deranged imagination.
Thank to Douglas Adams insight for the above.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30730436</id>
	<title>Re:Summary of comments</title>
	<author>ShakaUVM</author>
	<datestamp>1263211140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've just been reading the comments to see what the implications of this would be, if true.</p><p>So far, been sort of disappointed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've just been reading the comments to see what the implications of this would be , if true.So far , been sort of disappointed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've just been reading the comments to see what the implications of this would be, if true.So far, been sort of disappointed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718972</id>
	<title>Re:Summary of comments</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263133380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you forgot -</p><p>I will not believe in global warming until you can prove mathematically why I<br>cannot divide  by zero (0)!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you forgot -I will not believe in global warming until you can prove mathematically why Icannot divide by zero ( 0 ) !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you forgot -I will not believe in global warming until you can prove mathematically why Icannot divide  by zero (0)!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718180</id>
	<title>Re:way cool</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1263125940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's mind warping to imagine that the whole of our existence necessarily depends<br>on encodings that are 2-dimensional in nature. If this is the case, what a world<br>it would be. Philosophers and religious folk will argue over what that might mean.</p></div></blockquote><p>Time to upgrade the universe's video card?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's mind warping to imagine that the whole of our existence necessarily dependson encodings that are 2-dimensional in nature .
If this is the case , what a worldit would be .
Philosophers and religious folk will argue over what that might mean.Time to upgrade the universe 's video card ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's mind warping to imagine that the whole of our existence necessarily dependson encodings that are 2-dimensional in nature.
If this is the case, what a worldit would be.
Philosophers and religious folk will argue over what that might mean.Time to upgrade the universe's video card?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717302</id>
	<title>Piffel, dribbeling idiotic crapola!</title>
	<author>Paracelcus</author>
	<datestamp>1263120120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"He does not consider gravity as fundamental, but as an emergent phenomenon that arises from a deeper microscropic reality."</p><p>Wadda buncha dumbass shit, this dipfuck really needs to shuddup and sit down!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" He does not consider gravity as fundamental , but as an emergent phenomenon that arises from a deeper microscropic reality .
" Wadda buncha dumbass shit , this dipfuck really needs to shuddup and sit down !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"He does not consider gravity as fundamental, but as an emergent phenomenon that arises from a deeper microscropic reality.
"Wadda buncha dumbass shit, this dipfuck really needs to shuddup and sit down!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717528</id>
	<title>Re:way cool</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1263121440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>what does this potentially bring us, other than that better description?</p></div></blockquote><p>Insight.</p><blockquote><div><p>You know us engineers will be snickering until you show us something we can do or make shiny with this.</p></div></blockquote><p>You know, when Newton figured out the fundamentals of physics, he didn't do so to produce new shiny toys, but to understand the universe. Newton was philosopher, not engineer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>what does this potentially bring us , other than that better description ? Insight.You know us engineers will be snickering until you show us something we can do or make shiny with this.You know , when Newton figured out the fundamentals of physics , he did n't do so to produce new shiny toys , but to understand the universe .
Newton was philosopher , not engineer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what does this potentially bring us, other than that better description?Insight.You know us engineers will be snickering until you show us something we can do or make shiny with this.You know, when Newton figured out the fundamentals of physics, he didn't do so to produce new shiny toys, but to understand the universe.
Newton was philosopher, not engineer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718996</id>
	<title>Begs the question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263133680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is it possible to increase information in a given space without increasing mass?  Then perhaps you could make a gravity or anti-gravity generator.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it possible to increase information in a given space without increasing mass ?
Then perhaps you could make a gravity or anti-gravity generator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it possible to increase information in a given space without increasing mass?
Then perhaps you could make a gravity or anti-gravity generator.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30720500</id>
	<title>Sounds like modernized Le Sage's theory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263153300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le\_Sage\%27s\_theory\_of\_gravitation</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le \ _Sage \ % 27s \ _theory \ _of \ _gravitation</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le\_Sage\%27s\_theory\_of\_gravitation</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30722090</id>
	<title>Not for slashdot ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263220200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I started RTFA and stopped at that point (page 4) :
<br>
<br>
The entropy equals S(E,x)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I started RTFA and stopped at that point ( page 4 ) : The entropy equals S ( E,x )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I started RTFA and stopped at that point (page 4) :


The entropy equals S(E,x)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716760</id>
	<title>Textbooks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263116520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Damn it. I knew I should have sold back my college Physics textbooks when I had the chance...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn it .
I knew I should have sold back my college Physics textbooks when I had the chance.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn it.
I knew I should have sold back my college Physics textbooks when I had the chance...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717854</id>
	<title>Re:Put theory to test in real world</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1263123840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed, I don't consider a concentration of marketing people and bureaucrats very attractive. Which seems to support the theory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed , I do n't consider a concentration of marketing people and bureaucrats very attractive .
Which seems to support the theory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed, I don't consider a concentration of marketing people and bureaucrats very attractive.
Which seems to support the theory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717222</id>
	<title>Reminds me some of the way the 'Casimir' force</title>
	<author>shadowofwind</author>
	<datestamp>1263119640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>emerges naturally from a few very simple assumptions about light and vacuum.</p><p>Though I hate the tag Casimir force, since its just a bulk Van der Waals or London's force, not some spooky new energy source.</p><p>Even further off topic....People speak of vacuum energy, quantum foam, virtual photons and whatnot, but nobody calls it the ether anymore.  Of course earlier pre-relativistic concepts of the ether were flawed, and overturned by observation and better theories.  But it still seems to me that what is now called 'vacuum' could be called ether, and that the word ether would be more appropriate in some regards.  Maybe someone better qualified would like to comment on this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>emerges naturally from a few very simple assumptions about light and vacuum.Though I hate the tag Casimir force , since its just a bulk Van der Waals or London 's force , not some spooky new energy source.Even further off topic....People speak of vacuum energy , quantum foam , virtual photons and whatnot , but nobody calls it the ether anymore .
Of course earlier pre-relativistic concepts of the ether were flawed , and overturned by observation and better theories .
But it still seems to me that what is now called 'vacuum ' could be called ether , and that the word ether would be more appropriate in some regards .
Maybe someone better qualified would like to comment on this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>emerges naturally from a few very simple assumptions about light and vacuum.Though I hate the tag Casimir force, since its just a bulk Van der Waals or London's force, not some spooky new energy source.Even further off topic....People speak of vacuum energy, quantum foam, virtual photons and whatnot, but nobody calls it the ether anymore.
Of course earlier pre-relativistic concepts of the ether were flawed, and overturned by observation and better theories.
But it still seems to me that what is now called 'vacuum' could be called ether, and that the word ether would be more appropriate in some regards.
Maybe someone better qualified would like to comment on this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30721190</id>
	<title>Re:Summary of comments</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1263208440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you saying that waiting in traffic is better than <i>teleportation</i>?!<br> <br> <b>Heretic!</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you saying that waiting in traffic is better than teleportation ? !
Heretic !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you saying that waiting in traffic is better than teleportation?!
Heretic!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718620</id>
	<title>Nobel Prize?</title>
	<author>Pictish Prince</author>
	<datestamp>1263129480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I smell a Nobel prize in this guy's future.  His idea has all the advantages of a stochastic electrodynamics (SED) theory while neatly avoiding the fatal time-reversal flaw in SEDs.  Above all, the theory is simple and compelling.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I smell a Nobel prize in this guy 's future .
His idea has all the advantages of a stochastic electrodynamics ( SED ) theory while neatly avoiding the fatal time-reversal flaw in SEDs .
Above all , the theory is simple and compelling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I smell a Nobel prize in this guy's future.
His idea has all the advantages of a stochastic electrodynamics (SED) theory while neatly avoiding the fatal time-reversal flaw in SEDs.
Above all, the theory is simple and compelling.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30731286</id>
	<title>Re:way cool</title>
	<author>Caraig</author>
	<datestamp>1263215820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some of the more remarkable philosophical  implications of this is tie into not only Plato's Cave but also the Buddhist belief that 'reality' is an illusion.</p><p>Also, the holographic screen does not necessarilly need to be two-dimensional.  Our universe might simply be the N-dimensional interior of an (N-1)-dimenional sphere that exists in an (N+1) dimensional space.  How wild would that be?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of the more remarkable philosophical implications of this is tie into not only Plato 's Cave but also the Buddhist belief that 'reality ' is an illusion.Also , the holographic screen does not necessarilly need to be two-dimensional .
Our universe might simply be the N-dimensional interior of an ( N-1 ) -dimenional sphere that exists in an ( N + 1 ) dimensional space .
How wild would that be ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of the more remarkable philosophical  implications of this is tie into not only Plato's Cave but also the Buddhist belief that 'reality' is an illusion.Also, the holographic screen does not necessarilly need to be two-dimensional.
Our universe might simply be the N-dimensional interior of an (N-1)-dimenional sphere that exists in an (N+1) dimensional space.
How wild would that be?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717232</id>
	<title>The weight of it all</title>
	<author>PlasmaEye</author>
	<datestamp>1263119700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know about you, but all of this is too heavy for me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about you , but all of this is too heavy for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about you, but all of this is too heavy for me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30720808</id>
	<title>Why hasn't anyone brought up ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263201480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... intelligent falling?</p><p>I mean seriously: <i>In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of information in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings.</i></p><p>Are we about to see the theory of intelligent falling, a parody of intelligent design, shown to be real science? Aaaargh!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... intelligent falling ? I mean seriously : In his theory , gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of information in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings.Are we about to see the theory of intelligent falling , a parody of intelligent design , shown to be real science ?
Aaaargh !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... intelligent falling?I mean seriously: In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of information in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings.Are we about to see the theory of intelligent falling, a parody of intelligent design, shown to be real science?
Aaaargh!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30725342</id>
	<title>Re:Put theory to test in real world</title>
	<author>steelfood</author>
	<datestamp>1263235200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, they tend to stick together, so maybe it's the opposite.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , they tend to stick together , so maybe it 's the opposite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, they tend to stick together, so maybe it's the opposite.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719770</id>
	<title>Re:Stop posting articles from arXiv!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263143280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I call bullshit.  3 reasons:</p><p>1) *All*  of academia, and all of industry.  Really?  It's not like you even said the field of physics, or the field of geology, or sociology, or art history, all of which would have been too general on their own.  Heck, I don't even know what the peer review process is like in the last three; maybe they aren't even the same mechanism(though I would guess they are similar).  And I do know that intra-organizational culture varies widely from company to company.</p><p>2)</p><p><div class="quote"><p> It's all about making sure your paper says the right things to support the fucks (your "peers")</p></div><p>And which set of peers, exactly, is it? Is it the ones whose work agrees with your conclusions?  Or the ones whose work disagrees?  How do you know which are going to peer-review your paper? What happens when your peer reviewers are on opposite sides of a debate?</p><p>If your referring to the fact that peer reviewers will call you out for not discussing the relation of your work to contemporary efforts in your field, sorry, but I think most people would agree that it's reasonable to justify why your work is novel and/or meaningful.  And usually, unless what you've done is a total lost cause, they will tell you what additional references, experiment/calculations, or discussion you need to make it publishable.</p><p>3) Here's actually a very high-profile counter-example, from what most people see as a politically compromised field, <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/326/5958/1329" title="sciencemag.org" rel="nofollow">from the recent CRU Email debacle. </a> [sciencemag.org] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>A second message relates to a chapter in the 2007 IPCC report that Jones edited. In 2004, he suggested that two recent papers on temperature trends didn't deserve to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," he wrote Mann. "Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is." But Trenberth, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, says the papers were indeed considered. Thomas Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, North Carolina, an official reviewer for the chapter, says the IPCC's peer-review procedures "were sacrosanct." Both papers wound up being cited. </p></div><p>In other words not only were the two papers published, even though they contradict what all the "fucks" say, they were cited, despite the author's extreme aversion to doing so.</p><p>If I were generous, I'd say you are bitter because your had the misfortune of being screwed over a few times by some asshole reviewers (it happens from time to time, though usually you can just try another publication), if I were honest, I'd say your are pulling your comments out of your ass, and have no direct experience in acadamia(of any flavor), and if I were petty, I'd say you just don't want to face the fact that you were a crappy researcher.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I call bullshit .
3 reasons : 1 ) * All * of academia , and all of industry .
Really ? It 's not like you even said the field of physics , or the field of geology , or sociology , or art history , all of which would have been too general on their own .
Heck , I do n't even know what the peer review process is like in the last three ; maybe they are n't even the same mechanism ( though I would guess they are similar ) .
And I do know that intra-organizational culture varies widely from company to company.2 ) It 's all about making sure your paper says the right things to support the fucks ( your " peers " ) And which set of peers , exactly , is it ?
Is it the ones whose work agrees with your conclusions ?
Or the ones whose work disagrees ?
How do you know which are going to peer-review your paper ?
What happens when your peer reviewers are on opposite sides of a debate ? If your referring to the fact that peer reviewers will call you out for not discussing the relation of your work to contemporary efforts in your field , sorry , but I think most people would agree that it 's reasonable to justify why your work is novel and/or meaningful .
And usually , unless what you 've done is a total lost cause , they will tell you what additional references , experiment/calculations , or discussion you need to make it publishable.3 ) Here 's actually a very high-profile counter-example , from what most people see as a politically compromised field , from the recent CRU Email debacle .
[ sciencemag.org ] A second message relates to a chapter in the 2007 IPCC report that Jones edited .
In 2004 , he suggested that two recent papers on temperature trends did n't deserve to be published in a peer-reviewed journal .
" I ca n't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report , " he wrote Mann .
" Kevin [ Trenberth ] and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is .
" But Trenberth , of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder , Colorado , says the papers were indeed considered .
Thomas Karl , director of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville , North Carolina , an official reviewer for the chapter , says the IPCC 's peer-review procedures " were sacrosanct .
" Both papers wound up being cited .
In other words not only were the two papers published , even though they contradict what all the " fucks " say , they were cited , despite the author 's extreme aversion to doing so.If I were generous , I 'd say you are bitter because your had the misfortune of being screwed over a few times by some asshole reviewers ( it happens from time to time , though usually you can just try another publication ) , if I were honest , I 'd say your are pulling your comments out of your ass , and have no direct experience in acadamia ( of any flavor ) , and if I were petty , I 'd say you just do n't want to face the fact that you were a crappy researcher .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I call bullshit.
3 reasons:1) *All*  of academia, and all of industry.
Really?  It's not like you even said the field of physics, or the field of geology, or sociology, or art history, all of which would have been too general on their own.
Heck, I don't even know what the peer review process is like in the last three; maybe they aren't even the same mechanism(though I would guess they are similar).
And I do know that intra-organizational culture varies widely from company to company.2) It's all about making sure your paper says the right things to support the fucks (your "peers")And which set of peers, exactly, is it?
Is it the ones whose work agrees with your conclusions?
Or the ones whose work disagrees?
How do you know which are going to peer-review your paper?
What happens when your peer reviewers are on opposite sides of a debate?If your referring to the fact that peer reviewers will call you out for not discussing the relation of your work to contemporary efforts in your field, sorry, but I think most people would agree that it's reasonable to justify why your work is novel and/or meaningful.
And usually, unless what you've done is a total lost cause, they will tell you what additional references, experiment/calculations, or discussion you need to make it publishable.3) Here's actually a very high-profile counter-example, from what most people see as a politically compromised field, from the recent CRU Email debacle.
[sciencemag.org] A second message relates to a chapter in the 2007 IPCC report that Jones edited.
In 2004, he suggested that two recent papers on temperature trends didn't deserve to be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," he wrote Mann.
"Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is.
" But Trenberth, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, says the papers were indeed considered.
Thomas Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, North Carolina, an official reviewer for the chapter, says the IPCC's peer-review procedures "were sacrosanct.
" Both papers wound up being cited.
In other words not only were the two papers published, even though they contradict what all the "fucks" say, they were cited, despite the author's extreme aversion to doing so.If I were generous, I'd say you are bitter because your had the misfortune of being screwed over a few times by some asshole reviewers (it happens from time to time, though usually you can just try another publication), if I were honest, I'd say your are pulling your comments out of your ass, and have no direct experience in acadamia(of any flavor), and if I were petty, I'd say you just don't want to face the fact that you were a crappy researcher.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719264</id>
	<title>Re:What is "information"? (In that context.)</title>
	<author>bug1</author>
	<datestamp>1263137220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are a lot of smart physicists, its a shame more of them dont study philosophy so they have a grounding for their ideas.</p><p>Some points,</p><p>Information and entropy are abstract, they are only useful when applied to something.</p><p>Information and entropy are different words and have different meanings, they may be the same a narrow context, but that does not mean they are the same.</p><p>You can have concentrated (or dispersed) information (or entropy), you can only have concentrated or dispersed "Stuff" that information or entropy describes.</p><p>Failing to keep track of context like this is an easy way to discover pseudoscience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a lot of smart physicists , its a shame more of them dont study philosophy so they have a grounding for their ideas.Some points,Information and entropy are abstract , they are only useful when applied to something.Information and entropy are different words and have different meanings , they may be the same a narrow context , but that does not mean they are the same.You can have concentrated ( or dispersed ) information ( or entropy ) , you can only have concentrated or dispersed " Stuff " that information or entropy describes.Failing to keep track of context like this is an easy way to discover pseudoscience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a lot of smart physicists, its a shame more of them dont study philosophy so they have a grounding for their ideas.Some points,Information and entropy are abstract, they are only useful when applied to something.Information and entropy are different words and have different meanings, they may be the same a narrow context, but that does not mean they are the same.You can have concentrated (or dispersed) information (or entropy), you can only have concentrated or dispersed "Stuff" that information or entropy describes.Failing to keep track of context like this is an easy way to discover pseudoscience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717332</id>
	<title>Re:Stop posting articles from arXiv!</title>
	<author>Curunir\_wolf</author>
	<datestamp>1263120360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thank you.

MOD PARENT UP!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you .
MOD PARENT UP !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you.
MOD PARENT UP!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30720974</id>
	<title>Intelligent Falling</title>
	<author>kievit</author>
	<datestamp>1263204480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512" title="theonion.com">Gravity was refuted years ago by evangelical scientists</a> [theonion.com].</p><p>(I'm surprised that I seem to be the first to link to this Onion gem...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gravity was refuted years ago by evangelical scientists [ theonion.com ] .
( I 'm surprised that I seem to be the first to link to this Onion gem... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Gravity was refuted years ago by evangelical scientists [theonion.com].
(I'm surprised that I seem to be the first to link to this Onion gem...)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718438</id>
	<title>Awesome!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263127860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've never really cared for gravity to begin with. Toss it on the heap with Pluto, I say.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never really cared for gravity to begin with .
Toss it on the heap with Pluto , I say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never really cared for gravity to begin with.
Toss it on the heap with Pluto, I say.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717342</id>
	<title>Re:Stop posting articles from arXiv!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263120360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't be bitter just because your more level-headed peers rejected your kooky theories.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't be bitter just because your more level-headed peers rejected your kooky theories .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't be bitter just because your more level-headed peers rejected your kooky theories.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717010</id>
	<title>Re:Summary of comments</title>
	<author>JamesP</author>
	<datestamp>1263118080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In addition:</p><p>Someone is going to say "this violates conservation of energy/conservation of entropy/ blah" (even if it doesn't) and dismiss it. Also ignoring the fact that most new theories does violate something at the time of its discovery at some point</p><p>Another person is going to complain that this theory is crap but their favorite 'new thory' is the one, like, I dunno, "it's turtles all the way down" and this respects conservation of charge.</p><p>A "christian scientist" (LOL) is going to spin this as proof of Jesus or something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In addition : Someone is going to say " this violates conservation of energy/conservation of entropy/ blah " ( even if it does n't ) and dismiss it .
Also ignoring the fact that most new theories does violate something at the time of its discovery at some pointAnother person is going to complain that this theory is crap but their favorite 'new thory ' is the one , like , I dunno , " it 's turtles all the way down " and this respects conservation of charge.A " christian scientist " ( LOL ) is going to spin this as proof of Jesus or something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In addition:Someone is going to say "this violates conservation of energy/conservation of entropy/ blah" (even if it doesn't) and dismiss it.
Also ignoring the fact that most new theories does violate something at the time of its discovery at some pointAnother person is going to complain that this theory is crap but their favorite 'new thory' is the one, like, I dunno, "it's turtles all the way down" and this respects conservation of charge.A "christian scientist" (LOL) is going to spin this as proof of Jesus or something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30720994</id>
	<title>I may be stupid, but ...</title>
	<author>jandersen</author>
	<datestamp>1263204720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, ok, I admit it: I am stupid. However, "from fools and babes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...", as they say.</p><p>So he explains gravity away with information density, which to me looks just like another model saying more or less the same as the one we had, except that it feels less intuitive. I mean, explaining the force of gravity as somehow related to - or even equivalent to - the shape of space, that is something you can feel comfortable about; but talking about "information" as a fundamental property just seems like advanced gibberish. It certainly doesn't give me feeling of deeper understanding. Well, I have already pointed out a potential explanation for that.</p><p>What I don't like about this theory, though, is something more fundamental - it seems to accept the assumtion that "reality is fundamentally quantized" (intuitively, broken up in small, discontinuous bits). Let me expand a bit on that; we have two theories that are both hugely successful, but seem incompatible, General Relativity (GR) and quantum Mechanics (QM).</p><p>- GR makes a few fundamental assumptions, most notably that the speed of light is the same in all frames of reference; everything follows from that, more or less.<br>- QM makes a large number of fundamental assumtions, which leaves us with a large number of loose ends.</p><p>I for one would feel a lot happier if we could derive QM from GR; but for almost a century now, physicists have tried to hammer GR into QM with a sledge hammer, while there have been very few attempts at going the other. Far be it from to advance any stupid conspiracy theory, but as far as I can see, that situation stems mostly from Bohr and Heisenberg having fallen into a sort of quasi-religion about things.</p><p>What I hope is that somebody will begin to explore the derivation of QM from GR seriously; it isn't about "winning", it is about improving on our understanding of the physical reality. The theories are after all only tools, and we should be pragmatic about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , ok , I admit it : I am stupid .
However , " from fools and babes ... " , as they say.So he explains gravity away with information density , which to me looks just like another model saying more or less the same as the one we had , except that it feels less intuitive .
I mean , explaining the force of gravity as somehow related to - or even equivalent to - the shape of space , that is something you can feel comfortable about ; but talking about " information " as a fundamental property just seems like advanced gibberish .
It certainly does n't give me feeling of deeper understanding .
Well , I have already pointed out a potential explanation for that.What I do n't like about this theory , though , is something more fundamental - it seems to accept the assumtion that " reality is fundamentally quantized " ( intuitively , broken up in small , discontinuous bits ) .
Let me expand a bit on that ; we have two theories that are both hugely successful , but seem incompatible , General Relativity ( GR ) and quantum Mechanics ( QM ) .- GR makes a few fundamental assumptions , most notably that the speed of light is the same in all frames of reference ; everything follows from that , more or less.- QM makes a large number of fundamental assumtions , which leaves us with a large number of loose ends.I for one would feel a lot happier if we could derive QM from GR ; but for almost a century now , physicists have tried to hammer GR into QM with a sledge hammer , while there have been very few attempts at going the other .
Far be it from to advance any stupid conspiracy theory , but as far as I can see , that situation stems mostly from Bohr and Heisenberg having fallen into a sort of quasi-religion about things.What I hope is that somebody will begin to explore the derivation of QM from GR seriously ; it is n't about " winning " , it is about improving on our understanding of the physical reality .
The theories are after all only tools , and we should be pragmatic about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, ok, I admit it: I am stupid.
However, "from fools and babes ...", as they say.So he explains gravity away with information density, which to me looks just like another model saying more or less the same as the one we had, except that it feels less intuitive.
I mean, explaining the force of gravity as somehow related to - or even equivalent to - the shape of space, that is something you can feel comfortable about; but talking about "information" as a fundamental property just seems like advanced gibberish.
It certainly doesn't give me feeling of deeper understanding.
Well, I have already pointed out a potential explanation for that.What I don't like about this theory, though, is something more fundamental - it seems to accept the assumtion that "reality is fundamentally quantized" (intuitively, broken up in small, discontinuous bits).
Let me expand a bit on that; we have two theories that are both hugely successful, but seem incompatible, General Relativity (GR) and quantum Mechanics (QM).- GR makes a few fundamental assumptions, most notably that the speed of light is the same in all frames of reference; everything follows from that, more or less.- QM makes a large number of fundamental assumtions, which leaves us with a large number of loose ends.I for one would feel a lot happier if we could derive QM from GR; but for almost a century now, physicists have tried to hammer GR into QM with a sledge hammer, while there have been very few attempts at going the other.
Far be it from to advance any stupid conspiracy theory, but as far as I can see, that situation stems mostly from Bohr and Heisenberg having fallen into a sort of quasi-religion about things.What I hope is that somebody will begin to explore the derivation of QM from GR seriously; it isn't about "winning", it is about improving on our understanding of the physical reality.
The theories are after all only tools, and we should be pragmatic about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717172</id>
	<title>If it can't be tested, it's crap</title>
	<author>deprecated</author>
	<datestamp>1263119220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shenanigans!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shenanigans !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shenanigans!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717250</id>
	<title>Re:way cool</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263119820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This would put new meaning to the old saying, "Beauty is skin deep"!  In fact, it's only a surface and has no depth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This would put new meaning to the old saying , " Beauty is skin deep " !
In fact , it 's only a surface and has no depth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This would put new meaning to the old saying, "Beauty is skin deep"!
In fact, it's only a surface and has no depth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716990</id>
	<title>Re:Not at an all an expert but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263117960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Generally relationships are more interesting than constants, so I think you're on the right track. Upper-division Physics rarely deals with anything numerically because we all recognize that the laws are more important than their specific applications.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Generally relationships are more interesting than constants , so I think you 're on the right track .
Upper-division Physics rarely deals with anything numerically because we all recognize that the laws are more important than their specific applications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Generally relationships are more interesting than constants, so I think you're on the right track.
Upper-division Physics rarely deals with anything numerically because we all recognize that the laws are more important than their specific applications.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718606</id>
	<title>Re:What is "information"? (In that context.)</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1263129360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are assuming that you know what the word "information" means in physics. That assumption is faulty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are assuming that you know what the word " information " means in physics .
That assumption is faulty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are assuming that you know what the word "information" means in physics.
That assumption is faulty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718570</id>
	<title>Use the Force Erik...</title>
	<author>bagsta</author>
	<datestamp>1263129000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Gravity is explained as an entropic force caused by changes in the information associated with the positions of material bodies.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

May the Force be with you Erik...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gravity is explained as an entropic force caused by changes in the information associated with the positions of material bodies .
May the Force be with you Erik.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gravity is explained as an entropic force caused by changes in the information associated with the positions of material bodies.
May the Force be with you Erik...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717560</id>
	<title>Re:Summary of comments</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263121620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>almost as good as that old chesnut, your antispam idea won't work (check all that apply).... (i forget the rest)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>almost as good as that old chesnut , your antispam idea wo n't work ( check all that apply ) .... ( i forget the rest )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>almost as good as that old chesnut, your antispam idea won't work (check all that apply).... (i forget the rest)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30724670</id>
	<title>Re:Stop posting articles from arXiv!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263232860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Different AC here, can't let this one pass cause your post is the plain opposite of the "Insightful" mod you've gotten.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And industry has stopped doing original research for a long time now. I've heard tales of woe aplenty from people in so-called "R&amp;D" departments who complain that development times greater than a presidential term of office are simple laughed at in industry these days. Industry has come a long way (mostly hellward<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P) since the halcyon days of Bell Labs.</p></div><p>Hah! And you're laughably uninformed or maybe just inexperienced and naive.</p><p>Not only does relevant industries do more original research than ever before but most such industries see little choice in the matter and they also almost completely ignore "academia" ("academia" because it mostly really isn't academia any more) and their "peer reviewed" nonsense ("peer reviewed" because the intent of the peer review system has been broken for ages) because they time and time again during the last decades have found that it is UNRELIABLE for most practical purposes. The quality of most published research is simply too shoddy; to separate the wheat from the chaff requires too much labor so one has to do whatever one wants to do by oneself or it's worthless --this is the lesson learned and why nobody except those in "academia" cares much for anything within "academia".</p><p>And talk about bullshit detector, you've broken mine! Let me guess: you're an undergrad at some university that has the social asskissing part down but don't actually understand what you're supposed to be doing even though you think you do? That's the impression you give at least.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Different AC here , ca n't let this one pass cause your post is the plain opposite of the " Insightful " mod you 've gotten.And industry has stopped doing original research for a long time now .
I 've heard tales of woe aplenty from people in so-called " R&amp;D " departments who complain that development times greater than a presidential term of office are simple laughed at in industry these days .
Industry has come a long way ( mostly hellward : P ) since the halcyon days of Bell Labs.Hah !
And you 're laughably uninformed or maybe just inexperienced and naive.Not only does relevant industries do more original research than ever before but most such industries see little choice in the matter and they also almost completely ignore " academia " ( " academia " because it mostly really is n't academia any more ) and their " peer reviewed " nonsense ( " peer reviewed " because the intent of the peer review system has been broken for ages ) because they time and time again during the last decades have found that it is UNRELIABLE for most practical purposes .
The quality of most published research is simply too shoddy ; to separate the wheat from the chaff requires too much labor so one has to do whatever one wants to do by oneself or it 's worthless --this is the lesson learned and why nobody except those in " academia " cares much for anything within " academia " .And talk about bullshit detector , you 've broken mine !
Let me guess : you 're an undergrad at some university that has the social asskissing part down but do n't actually understand what you 're supposed to be doing even though you think you do ?
That 's the impression you give at least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Different AC here, can't let this one pass cause your post is the plain opposite of the "Insightful" mod you've gotten.And industry has stopped doing original research for a long time now.
I've heard tales of woe aplenty from people in so-called "R&amp;D" departments who complain that development times greater than a presidential term of office are simple laughed at in industry these days.
Industry has come a long way (mostly hellward :P) since the halcyon days of Bell Labs.Hah!
And you're laughably uninformed or maybe just inexperienced and naive.Not only does relevant industries do more original research than ever before but most such industries see little choice in the matter and they also almost completely ignore "academia" ("academia" because it mostly really isn't academia any more) and their "peer reviewed" nonsense ("peer reviewed" because the intent of the peer review system has been broken for ages) because they time and time again during the last decades have found that it is UNRELIABLE for most practical purposes.
The quality of most published research is simply too shoddy; to separate the wheat from the chaff requires too much labor so one has to do whatever one wants to do by oneself or it's worthless --this is the lesson learned and why nobody except those in "academia" cares much for anything within "academia".And talk about bullshit detector, you've broken mine!
Let me guess: you're an undergrad at some university that has the social asskissing part down but don't actually understand what you're supposed to be doing even though you think you do?
That's the impression you give at least.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718526</id>
	<title>Re:Summary of comments</title>
	<author>Sulphur</author>
	<datestamp>1263128640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone is going to say "this violates conservation of energy/conservation of entropy/ blah"</p><p>Instead of Conservation of Blah, why not Conservation of Google.  (More suggestive of information than say Luminiferous Aether)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone is going to say " this violates conservation of energy/conservation of entropy/ blah " Instead of Conservation of Blah , why not Conservation of Google .
( More suggestive of information than say Luminiferous Aether )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone is going to say "this violates conservation of energy/conservation of entropy/ blah"Instead of Conservation of Blah, why not Conservation of Google.
(More suggestive of information than say Luminiferous Aether)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719832</id>
	<title>Re:It is being tested- more or less</title>
	<author>mburns</author>
	<datestamp>1263144180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To the contrary I say. The theory predicting the Higgs boson is defiantly incompatible with general relativity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To the contrary I say .
The theory predicting the Higgs boson is defiantly incompatible with general relativity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To the contrary I say.
The theory predicting the Higgs boson is defiantly incompatible with general relativity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717298</id>
	<title>You left out a few ...</title>
	<author>garyebickford</author>
	<datestamp>1263120120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>  - 42<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; -<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... profit!!<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; - in Soviet Russia, you suck gravity! (??)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>- 42     - .. .
profit ! !     - in Soviet Russia , you suck gravity !
( ? ? )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  - 42
    - ...
profit!!
    - in Soviet Russia, you suck gravity!
(??)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30729962</id>
	<title>Re:Summary of comments</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263209040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ow.</p><p>Seriously...some of those links...just...I...</p><p>Ow.</p><p>I tip my hat to you, sir. With a few scant sentences you have caused me a headache which will take much libation to arrest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ow.Seriously...some of those links...just...I...Ow.I tip my hat to you , sir .
With a few scant sentences you have caused me a headache which will take much libation to arrest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ow.Seriously...some of those links...just...I...Ow.I tip my hat to you, sir.
With a few scant sentences you have caused me a headache which will take much libation to arrest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718010</id>
	<title>Re:Stop posting articles from arXiv!</title>
	<author>thrawn\_aj</author>
	<datestamp>1263124980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>When someone says "academia" when they should say "my field" my bullshit sensors light up like crazy. Ironically, your posting as AC shows the fundamental flaw (EVEN in principle) in non peer-reviewed journals. <br> <br>

And industry has stopped doing original research for a long time now. I've heard tales of woe aplenty from people in so-called "R&amp;D" departments who complain that development times greater than a presidential term of office are simple laughed at in industry these days. Industry has come a long way (mostly hellward<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P) since the halcyon days of Bell Labs. <br> <br>

There are many problems with the academic peer review process. The problem you allude to probably even exists in some fields. For the most part, clever researchers find a way around them and visionaries try daily to try to change things for the better. And then there some who<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... leave academia, enter industry, get bored and post anonymous comments on message boards *cough*.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When someone says " academia " when they should say " my field " my bullshit sensors light up like crazy .
Ironically , your posting as AC shows the fundamental flaw ( EVEN in principle ) in non peer-reviewed journals .
And industry has stopped doing original research for a long time now .
I 've heard tales of woe aplenty from people in so-called " R&amp;D " departments who complain that development times greater than a presidential term of office are simple laughed at in industry these days .
Industry has come a long way ( mostly hellward : P ) since the halcyon days of Bell Labs .
There are many problems with the academic peer review process .
The problem you allude to probably even exists in some fields .
For the most part , clever researchers find a way around them and visionaries try daily to try to change things for the better .
And then there some who ... leave academia , enter industry , get bored and post anonymous comments on message boards * cough * .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When someone says "academia" when they should say "my field" my bullshit sensors light up like crazy.
Ironically, your posting as AC shows the fundamental flaw (EVEN in principle) in non peer-reviewed journals.
And industry has stopped doing original research for a long time now.
I've heard tales of woe aplenty from people in so-called "R&amp;D" departments who complain that development times greater than a presidential term of office are simple laughed at in industry these days.
Industry has come a long way (mostly hellward :P) since the halcyon days of Bell Labs.
There are many problems with the academic peer review process.
The problem you allude to probably even exists in some fields.
For the most part, clever researchers find a way around them and visionaries try daily to try to change things for the better.
And then there some who ... leave academia, enter industry, get bored and post anonymous comments on message boards *cough*.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716768</id>
	<title>Testable, currently unseen predictions.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263116580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see a lot of explanations and mathematics, but I don't see anything in the way of testable predictions.</p><p>Scanning through the paper the word prediction occurs twice.  Here's both of them:</p><blockquote><div><p>    Does this view of gravity lead to predictions? The statistical average should give<br>the usual laws, hence one has to study the fluctuations in the gravitational force. Their<br>size depends on the effective temperature, which may not be universal and depends on<br>the effective value of . An interesting thought is that fluctuations may turn out to<br>be more pronounced for weak gravitational fields between small bodies of matter. But<br>clearly, we need a better understanding of the theory to turn this in to a prediction.</p></div></blockquote><p>Wake me when the guy comes up with at least one, and it's testable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see a lot of explanations and mathematics , but I do n't see anything in the way of testable predictions.Scanning through the paper the word prediction occurs twice .
Here 's both of them : Does this view of gravity lead to predictions ?
The statistical average should givethe usual laws , hence one has to study the fluctuations in the gravitational force .
Theirsize depends on the effective temperature , which may not be universal and depends onthe effective value of .
An interesting thought is that fluctuations may turn out tobe more pronounced for weak gravitational fields between small bodies of matter .
Butclearly , we need a better understanding of the theory to turn this in to a prediction.Wake me when the guy comes up with at least one , and it 's testable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see a lot of explanations and mathematics, but I don't see anything in the way of testable predictions.Scanning through the paper the word prediction occurs twice.
Here's both of them:    Does this view of gravity lead to predictions?
The statistical average should givethe usual laws, hence one has to study the fluctuations in the gravitational force.
Theirsize depends on the effective temperature, which may not be universal and depends onthe effective value of .
An interesting thought is that fluctuations may turn out tobe more pronounced for weak gravitational fields between small bodies of matter.
Butclearly, we need a better understanding of the theory to turn this in to a prediction.Wake me when the guy comes up with at least one, and it's testable.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716754</id>
	<title>way cool</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263116520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>FTA:"Starting from first principles, using only space independent concepts like<br>energy, entropy and temperature, it is shown that Newtons laws appear naturally and<br>practically unavoidably. Gravity is explained as an entropic force caused by a change<br>in the amount of information associated with the positions of bodies of matter. "</p><p>and "...  the holographic hypothesis provides<br>a natural mechanism for gravity to emerge. It allows direct contact interactions<br>between degrees of freedom associated with one material body and another, since all<br>bodies inside a volume can be mapped on the same holographic screen."</p></div><p>If this is proven correct - that gravity and inertia are emergent from information entropy<br>and statistics, it would be very, very exciting if for no other reason than it would be yet<br>another support (probably the strongest yet) for the holographic universe description /<br>the 'reduced dimensionality' description.  This could also resolve some of the impossibly<br>inconsistent problems in physics integrating gravity with microscopic forces and spooky<br>effects like action at a distance.</p><p>So far all we've had to support a holographic universe is black hole physics and string<br>theory conjectures.</p><p>It's mind warping to imagine that the whole of our existence necessarily depends<br>on encodings that are 2-dimensional in nature.  If this is the case, what a world<br>it would be.  Philosophers and religious folk will argue over what that might mean.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTA : " Starting from first principles , using only space independent concepts likeenergy , entropy and temperature , it is shown that Newtons laws appear naturally andpractically unavoidably .
Gravity is explained as an entropic force caused by a changein the amount of information associated with the positions of bodies of matter .
" and " ... the holographic hypothesis providesa natural mechanism for gravity to emerge .
It allows direct contact interactionsbetween degrees of freedom associated with one material body and another , since allbodies inside a volume can be mapped on the same holographic screen .
" If this is proven correct - that gravity and inertia are emergent from information entropyand statistics , it would be very , very exciting if for no other reason than it would be yetanother support ( probably the strongest yet ) for the holographic universe description /the 'reduced dimensionality ' description .
This could also resolve some of the impossiblyinconsistent problems in physics integrating gravity with microscopic forces and spookyeffects like action at a distance.So far all we 've had to support a holographic universe is black hole physics and stringtheory conjectures.It 's mind warping to imagine that the whole of our existence necessarily dependson encodings that are 2-dimensional in nature .
If this is the case , what a worldit would be .
Philosophers and religious folk will argue over what that might mean .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTA:"Starting from first principles, using only space independent concepts likeenergy, entropy and temperature, it is shown that Newtons laws appear naturally andpractically unavoidably.
Gravity is explained as an entropic force caused by a changein the amount of information associated with the positions of bodies of matter.
"and "...  the holographic hypothesis providesa natural mechanism for gravity to emerge.
It allows direct contact interactionsbetween degrees of freedom associated with one material body and another, since allbodies inside a volume can be mapped on the same holographic screen.
"If this is proven correct - that gravity and inertia are emergent from information entropyand statistics, it would be very, very exciting if for no other reason than it would be yetanother support (probably the strongest yet) for the holographic universe description /the 'reduced dimensionality' description.
This could also resolve some of the impossiblyinconsistent problems in physics integrating gravity with microscopic forces and spookyeffects like action at a distance.So far all we've had to support a holographic universe is black hole physics and stringtheory conjectures.It's mind warping to imagine that the whole of our existence necessarily dependson encodings that are 2-dimensional in nature.
If this is the case, what a worldit would be.
Philosophers and religious folk will argue over what that might mean.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718970</id>
	<title>Re:Comments from Lubos Motl</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1263133320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like he's cribbed stuff from Greg Egan. "For example, the requirement of the diffeomorphism invariance is a bulk constraint needed to eliminate unphysical degrees of freedom of the spin-two fields. But this argument only makes sense if you start with bulk spin-two fields with bulk Lorentz indices." sounds pretty much like the debate in Schild's Ladder about spin networks and the derivation of the Sarumpaet Rules.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like he 's cribbed stuff from Greg Egan .
" For example , the requirement of the diffeomorphism invariance is a bulk constraint needed to eliminate unphysical degrees of freedom of the spin-two fields .
But this argument only makes sense if you start with bulk spin-two fields with bulk Lorentz indices .
" sounds pretty much like the debate in Schild 's Ladder about spin networks and the derivation of the Sarumpaet Rules .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like he's cribbed stuff from Greg Egan.
"For example, the requirement of the diffeomorphism invariance is a bulk constraint needed to eliminate unphysical degrees of freedom of the spin-two fields.
But this argument only makes sense if you start with bulk spin-two fields with bulk Lorentz indices.
" sounds pretty much like the debate in Schild's Ladder about spin networks and the derivation of the Sarumpaet Rules.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717008</id>
	<title>Re:way cool</title>
	<author>richdun</author>
	<datestamp>1263118080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Philosophers and religious folk will argue over what that might mean.</i> </p><p>And while they are all deciding whether God/god/Xenu programmed the universe via voice command or a PADD, I'll be working to convince the Creator that I am self-aware, thus securing a free warp-capable shuttlecraft!</p><p>On a more serious note, as is always the case, this "new" line of thought seems to be a better description of something we observe, yet still constrained by our ability to model and describe things. As IANATP (I am not a theoretical physicist, more the applied kind), what does this potentially bring us, other than that better description? You know us engineers will be snickering until you show us something we can do or make shiny with this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Philosophers and religious folk will argue over what that might mean .
And while they are all deciding whether God/god/Xenu programmed the universe via voice command or a PADD , I 'll be working to convince the Creator that I am self-aware , thus securing a free warp-capable shuttlecraft ! On a more serious note , as is always the case , this " new " line of thought seems to be a better description of something we observe , yet still constrained by our ability to model and describe things .
As IANATP ( I am not a theoretical physicist , more the applied kind ) , what does this potentially bring us , other than that better description ?
You know us engineers will be snickering until you show us something we can do or make shiny with this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Philosophers and religious folk will argue over what that might mean.
And while they are all deciding whether God/god/Xenu programmed the universe via voice command or a PADD, I'll be working to convince the Creator that I am self-aware, thus securing a free warp-capable shuttlecraft!On a more serious note, as is always the case, this "new" line of thought seems to be a better description of something we observe, yet still constrained by our ability to model and describe things.
As IANATP (I am not a theoretical physicist, more the applied kind), what does this potentially bring us, other than that better description?
You know us engineers will be snickering until you show us something we can do or make shiny with this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719502</id>
	<title>It would go a long way to explaining a lot</title>
	<author>SlappyBastard</author>
	<datestamp>1263140220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cause let's just be honest, as a framework for understanding the universe, gravity is just a stone cold bitch that has no answers but lots of demands.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cause let 's just be honest , as a framework for understanding the universe , gravity is just a stone cold bitch that has no answers but lots of demands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cause let's just be honest, as a framework for understanding the universe, gravity is just a stone cold bitch that has no answers but lots of demands.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718020</id>
	<title>Re:Stop posting articles from arXiv!</title>
	<author>shadowofwind</author>
	<datestamp>1263125040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you've spent any time in academia, you'd know that peer review is a cruel joke.</p><p>It's more politics than science.</p></div><p>I think part of the root of the problem is the outsourcing of manufacturing to overseas.  Its more difficult to do real, useful R&amp;D when you're disconnected from the concrete applications.  And the effect propagates to other areas not directly connected with manufacturing, because of the way everything is related.  So the politics takes over somewhat by default in the absence of a more meaningful bottom line.</p><p>This problem affects industry as much as academia though, even though the symptoms are somewhat different.</p><p>There must be industries where outsourcing makes good, long term sense.  And maybe overall it will work out OK in the long run.  But for the high tech companies that I have direct knowledge of, its always looked to me like a myopic decision that looked good to someone on a quarterly spreadsheet or powerpoint presentation but doesn't really pan out in the long run.</p><p>But in any case, yeah I agree about academia.  Its not all BS, but certainly there's a lot of that in it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 've spent any time in academia , you 'd know that peer review is a cruel joke.It 's more politics than science.I think part of the root of the problem is the outsourcing of manufacturing to overseas .
Its more difficult to do real , useful R&amp;D when you 're disconnected from the concrete applications .
And the effect propagates to other areas not directly connected with manufacturing , because of the way everything is related .
So the politics takes over somewhat by default in the absence of a more meaningful bottom line.This problem affects industry as much as academia though , even though the symptoms are somewhat different.There must be industries where outsourcing makes good , long term sense .
And maybe overall it will work out OK in the long run .
But for the high tech companies that I have direct knowledge of , its always looked to me like a myopic decision that looked good to someone on a quarterly spreadsheet or powerpoint presentation but does n't really pan out in the long run.But in any case , yeah I agree about academia .
Its not all BS , but certainly there 's a lot of that in it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you've spent any time in academia, you'd know that peer review is a cruel joke.It's more politics than science.I think part of the root of the problem is the outsourcing of manufacturing to overseas.
Its more difficult to do real, useful R&amp;D when you're disconnected from the concrete applications.
And the effect propagates to other areas not directly connected with manufacturing, because of the way everything is related.
So the politics takes over somewhat by default in the absence of a more meaningful bottom line.This problem affects industry as much as academia though, even though the symptoms are somewhat different.There must be industries where outsourcing makes good, long term sense.
And maybe overall it will work out OK in the long run.
But for the high tech companies that I have direct knowledge of, its always looked to me like a myopic decision that looked good to someone on a quarterly spreadsheet or powerpoint presentation but doesn't really pan out in the long run.But in any case, yeah I agree about academia.
Its not all BS, but certainly there's a lot of that in it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750</id>
	<title>Summary of comments</title>
	<author>Daniel Dvorkin</author>
	<datestamp>1263116460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least half the comments on this story will boil down to one or more of the following:</p><ul><li>String theory is bunk.  I know this because I heard someone call it "string theology" once and I thought that was clever.</li><li>This idea is bunk because I think it contradicts something I vaguely remember from the Physics 101 course I took as a requirement for my CS degree ten years ago.</li><li>Modern physics is bunk because <a href="http://www.rebelscience.org/" title="rebelscience.org" rel="nofollow">nothing can move in spacetime</a> [rebelscience.org].  Visit my blog to learn the truth!</li><li>Everyone knows the unifying force that holds the universe together is not gravity, but <a href="http://www.the-electric-universe.info/" title="the-electr...verse.info" rel="nofollow">electricity.</a> [the-electr...verse.info]  We have <a href="http://www.holoscience.com/" title="holoscience.com" rel="nofollow">books</a> [holoscience.com], too!</li><li>Ivory-tower egghead academics want to keep all their science locked away behind paywalls!  How are we supposed to evaluate this if we can't <a href="http://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.0785v1" title="arxiv.org" rel="nofollow">read the paper</a> [arxiv.org]?!?</li><li>Modern science is bunk.  These stupid liberal academics should just read the Bible.</li><li> <a href="http://timecube.com/" title="timecube.com" rel="nofollow">YOU ARE EDUCATED STUPID!</a> [timecube.com]</li></ul><p>There.  That should save everyone some time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least half the comments on this story will boil down to one or more of the following : String theory is bunk .
I know this because I heard someone call it " string theology " once and I thought that was clever.This idea is bunk because I think it contradicts something I vaguely remember from the Physics 101 course I took as a requirement for my CS degree ten years ago.Modern physics is bunk because nothing can move in spacetime [ rebelscience.org ] .
Visit my blog to learn the truth ! Everyone knows the unifying force that holds the universe together is not gravity , but electricity .
[ the-electr...verse.info ] We have books [ holoscience.com ] , too ! Ivory-tower egghead academics want to keep all their science locked away behind paywalls !
How are we supposed to evaluate this if we ca n't read the paper [ arxiv.org ] ? !
? Modern science is bunk .
These stupid liberal academics should just read the Bible .
YOU ARE EDUCATED STUPID !
[ timecube.com ] There. That should save everyone some time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least half the comments on this story will boil down to one or more of the following:String theory is bunk.
I know this because I heard someone call it "string theology" once and I thought that was clever.This idea is bunk because I think it contradicts something I vaguely remember from the Physics 101 course I took as a requirement for my CS degree ten years ago.Modern physics is bunk because nothing can move in spacetime [rebelscience.org].
Visit my blog to learn the truth!Everyone knows the unifying force that holds the universe together is not gravity, but electricity.
[the-electr...verse.info]  We have books [holoscience.com], too!Ivory-tower egghead academics want to keep all their science locked away behind paywalls!
How are we supposed to evaluate this if we can't read the paper [arxiv.org]?!
?Modern science is bunk.
These stupid liberal academics should just read the Bible.
YOU ARE EDUCATED STUPID!
[timecube.com]There.  That should save everyone some time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717462</id>
	<title>The Real Cause of Gravity from Rebel Science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263121020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rebel Science News explains the <a href="http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2009/12/gravity-part-i.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">real cause of gravity</a> [blogspot.com]. It has to do with energy conservation and the fundamental nature of motion. In brief, Aristotle was right all along, surprise! Motion does need a cause and, as a result, we are immersed in an immense lattice of energetic particles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rebel Science News explains the real cause of gravity [ blogspot.com ] .
It has to do with energy conservation and the fundamental nature of motion .
In brief , Aristotle was right all along , surprise !
Motion does need a cause and , as a result , we are immersed in an immense lattice of energetic particles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rebel Science News explains the real cause of gravity [blogspot.com].
It has to do with energy conservation and the fundamental nature of motion.
In brief, Aristotle was right all along, surprise!
Motion does need a cause and, as a result, we are immersed in an immense lattice of energetic particles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718874</id>
	<title>Re:Comments from Lubos Motl</title>
	<author>ChienAndalu</author>
	<datestamp>1263132300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From my understanding, this guy is just a troll - not an authority</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From my understanding , this guy is just a troll - not an authority</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From my understanding, this guy is just a troll - not an authority</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716920</id>
	<title>Getting paranoia to a new level</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1263117480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Like when you study information theory because don't like physics, and the basis of physic world, like gravitation, turns to be information theory.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like when you study information theory because do n't like physics , and the basis of physic world , like gravitation , turns to be information theory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like when you study information theory because don't like physics, and the basis of physic world, like gravitation, turns to be information theory.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30720698</id>
	<title>Re:What is "information"? (In that context.)</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1263242640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you are saying it is another word for &ldquo;order&rdquo;, as in &ldquo;the opposite of chaos/entropy&rdquo;?<br>Then why not say that instead? Low entropy. That&rsquo;s something one can use.<br>So the unit would be what then? &ldquo;Temperature&rdquo; would be the unit that measures the rate of change of that unit. (Like acceleration is for speed.) Does a unit for that exist already?</p><p>Sorry, can&rsquo;t take you serious that way. (But will consider, if you extend upon the above assumption of it being low entropy.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you are saying it is another word for    order    , as in    the opposite of chaos/entropy    ? Then why not say that instead ?
Low entropy .
That    s something one can use.So the unit would be what then ?
   Temperature    would be the unit that measures the rate of change of that unit .
( Like acceleration is for speed .
) Does a unit for that exist already ? Sorry , can    t take you serious that way .
( But will consider , if you extend upon the above assumption of it being low entropy .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you are saying it is another word for “order”, as in “the opposite of chaos/entropy”?Then why not say that instead?
Low entropy.
That’s something one can use.So the unit would be what then?
“Temperature” would be the unit that measures the rate of change of that unit.
(Like acceleration is for speed.
) Does a unit for that exist already?Sorry, can’t take you serious that way.
(But will consider, if you extend upon the above assumption of it being low entropy.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717788</id>
	<title>Re:Summary of comments</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263123360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You assume saving time means the journey is unimportant. young grasshopper<br>Masterful exercise over ones own destination gives one more ability to delegate their time to their choosing.<br>Freeing time provides time to fill. The journey is what fills said time.<br>And doing just that, sounds to me, controlling ones savings of time is in fact, showing importance to the journey.<br>I believe your perception of ones journey should somehow be dictated by someone else. dead grasshopper</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You assume saving time means the journey is unimportant .
young grasshopperMasterful exercise over ones own destination gives one more ability to delegate their time to their choosing.Freeing time provides time to fill .
The journey is what fills said time.And doing just that , sounds to me , controlling ones savings of time is in fact , showing importance to the journey.I believe your perception of ones journey should somehow be dictated by someone else .
dead grasshopper</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You assume saving time means the journey is unimportant.
young grasshopperMasterful exercise over ones own destination gives one more ability to delegate their time to their choosing.Freeing time provides time to fill.
The journey is what fills said time.And doing just that, sounds to me, controlling ones savings of time is in fact, showing importance to the journey.I believe your perception of ones journey should somehow be dictated by someone else.
dead grasshopper</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717312</id>
	<title>Re:way cool</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263120240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, one would also have to check that statistics involved wasn't a modified form of the original theory.</p><p>There are a lot of reworkings of basic theories that seem to work only because assume the basic theories in a way that is hidden.</p><p>Physics is hard...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , one would also have to check that statistics involved was n't a modified form of the original theory.There are a lot of reworkings of basic theories that seem to work only because assume the basic theories in a way that is hidden.Physics is hard.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, one would also have to check that statistics involved wasn't a modified form of the original theory.There are a lot of reworkings of basic theories that seem to work only because assume the basic theories in a way that is hidden.Physics is hard...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718926</id>
	<title>Re:Summary of comments</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263132840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't understand this comment. Can you express it in the form of a car analogy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand this comment .
Can you express it in the form of a car analogy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand this comment.
Can you express it in the form of a car analogy?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716798</id>
	<title>Not at an all an expert but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263116820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
From <a href="http://www.scientificblogging.com/hammock\_physicist/holographic\_hot\_horizons" title="scientificblogging.com">http://www.scientificblogging.com/hammock\_physicist/holographic\_hot\_horizons</a> [scientificblogging.com] the first of the two blog entries:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The value for G comes out correctly if you enter for Abit the value corresponding to a Planck area. However, the Planck area (G/c3) is defined in terms of Newton's gravitational constant G. Have we not introduced a circular reasoning here? I am actually not sure.</p></div><p>
This does seem like an issue. However, it looks like you can do this with G as a variable. The upshot then is not that you get the right value for G at the end but that you get Newton's inverse square law (up to a scalar) which by itself would be really impressive even if one can't a priori get the value of G.
</p><p>
Obligatory disclaimer: I'm a math grad student not a physicist so I could be completely wrong here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From http : //www.scientificblogging.com/hammock \ _physicist/holographic \ _hot \ _horizons [ scientificblogging.com ] the first of the two blog entries : The value for G comes out correctly if you enter for Abit the value corresponding to a Planck area .
However , the Planck area ( G/c3 ) is defined in terms of Newton 's gravitational constant G. Have we not introduced a circular reasoning here ?
I am actually not sure .
This does seem like an issue .
However , it looks like you can do this with G as a variable .
The upshot then is not that you get the right value for G at the end but that you get Newton 's inverse square law ( up to a scalar ) which by itself would be really impressive even if one ca n't a priori get the value of G . Obligatory disclaimer : I 'm a math grad student not a physicist so I could be completely wrong here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
From http://www.scientificblogging.com/hammock\_physicist/holographic\_hot\_horizons [scientificblogging.com] the first of the two blog entries:The value for G comes out correctly if you enter for Abit the value corresponding to a Planck area.
However, the Planck area (G/c3) is defined in terms of Newton's gravitational constant G. Have we not introduced a circular reasoning here?
I am actually not sure.
This does seem like an issue.
However, it looks like you can do this with G as a variable.
The upshot then is not that you get the right value for G at the end but that you get Newton's inverse square law (up to a scalar) which by itself would be really impressive even if one can't a priori get the value of G.

Obligatory disclaimer: I'm a math grad student not a physicist so I could be completely wrong here.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719356</id>
	<title>Re:Summary of comments</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263138240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Coral lotion is not cars Asian.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Coral lotion is not cars Asian .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Coral lotion is not cars Asian.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717140</id>
	<title>Re:Not at an all an expert but...</title>
	<author>shadowofwind</author>
	<datestamp>1263119040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Taking a wild, poorly informed guess....Maybe if you were to assume a different value for G and follow through all the implications, you would wind up with essentially the same universe but with different units.  So it would be arbitrary, and in theory you could get rid of the G entirely and just use the plank area everywhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Taking a wild , poorly informed guess....Maybe if you were to assume a different value for G and follow through all the implications , you would wind up with essentially the same universe but with different units .
So it would be arbitrary , and in theory you could get rid of the G entirely and just use the plank area everywhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Taking a wild, poorly informed guess....Maybe if you were to assume a different value for G and follow through all the implications, you would wind up with essentially the same universe but with different units.
So it would be arbitrary, and in theory you could get rid of the G entirely and just use the plank area everywhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719694</id>
	<title>Re:Stop posting articles from arXiv!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263142500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe The Poincar&#233; conjecture was solved when Grigori Perelman uploaded his proof to arXiv.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe The Poincar   conjecture was solved when Grigori Perelman uploaded his proof to arXiv .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe The Poincaré conjecture was solved when Grigori Perelman uploaded his proof to arXiv.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717624</id>
	<title>Re:Summary of comments</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1263122160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're not very good at visualizing infinity; if you remove from it some number (unpopulated words) you still have infinity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're not very good at visualizing infinity ; if you remove from it some number ( unpopulated words ) you still have infinity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're not very good at visualizing infinity; if you remove from it some number (unpopulated words) you still have infinity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717610</id>
	<title>First Pluto, then gravity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263122040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Will science leave me anything I learned in class ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will science leave me anything I learned in class ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will science leave me anything I learned in class ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30721168</id>
	<title>Re:Stop posting articles from arXiv!</title>
	<author>ThanatosMinor</author>
	<datestamp>1263207840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Rather than post completely uninformed comments on the subject, leave that to people in the field.</p></div></blockquote><p>You must be new here</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rather than post completely uninformed comments on the subject , leave that to people in the field.You must be new here</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rather than post completely uninformed comments on the subject, leave that to people in the field.You must be new here
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30730856</id>
	<title>Re:Stop posting articles from arXiv!</title>
	<author>xkcdFan1011011101111</author>
	<datestamp>1263213300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my field, the turn around time for an article to go from submission to publication in a peer reviewed journal is something like 8 months if all of the reviewers love your paper and think no corrections are required (which never happens).</p><p>arXiv lets us read the paper while we wait for it to go through the peer review process. </p><p>Also, arXiv allows the author to be able to prove that he came up with this result by a date everyone trusts.  If some insensitive clod comes along later and claims they derived this result first, we can all point to arXiv and state the date that this author announced his result.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my field , the turn around time for an article to go from submission to publication in a peer reviewed journal is something like 8 months if all of the reviewers love your paper and think no corrections are required ( which never happens ) .arXiv lets us read the paper while we wait for it to go through the peer review process .
Also , arXiv allows the author to be able to prove that he came up with this result by a date everyone trusts .
If some insensitive clod comes along later and claims they derived this result first , we can all point to arXiv and state the date that this author announced his result .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my field, the turn around time for an article to go from submission to publication in a peer reviewed journal is something like 8 months if all of the reviewers love your paper and think no corrections are required (which never happens).arXiv lets us read the paper while we wait for it to go through the peer review process.
Also, arXiv allows the author to be able to prove that he came up with this result by a date everyone trusts.
If some insensitive clod comes along later and claims they derived this result first, we can all point to arXiv and state the date that this author announced his result.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717648</id>
	<title>Concentration of Information</title>
	<author>icebike</author>
	<datestamp>1263122280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> a difference in concentration of information</p></div><p>Information wants to be free.</p><p>God help us if it ever becomes so.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>a difference in concentration of informationInformation wants to be free.God help us if it ever becomes so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> a difference in concentration of informationInformation wants to be free.God help us if it ever becomes so.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30721078</id>
	<title>This can not be correct!</title>
	<author>Ozlanthos</author>
	<datestamp>1263206040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of information in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings. He does not consider gravity as fundamental, but as an emergent phenomenon that arises from a deeper microscropic reality."
<br>
<br>
I've spent years studying the deeper microscopic reality of Julia Robert's vagina, and am not any closer to it than when I started (Pretty Woman)
<br>
<br>
-Oz</htmltext>
<tokenext>" In his theory , gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of information in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings .
He does not consider gravity as fundamental , but as an emergent phenomenon that arises from a deeper microscropic reality .
" I 've spent years studying the deeper microscopic reality of Julia Robert 's vagina , and am not any closer to it than when I started ( Pretty Woman ) -Oz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of information in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings.
He does not consider gravity as fundamental, but as an emergent phenomenon that arises from a deeper microscropic reality.
"


I've spent years studying the deeper microscopic reality of Julia Robert's vagina, and am not any closer to it than when I started (Pretty Woman)


-Oz</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716998</id>
	<title>I'm sorry to interrupt here....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263118020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but I was the anonymous coward that submitted this. I've been lurking here for a dozen years or more and....I couldn't be more happy.</p><p>I'm having a complete nerdgasm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but I was the anonymous coward that submitted this .
I 've been lurking here for a dozen years or more and....I could n't be more happy.I 'm having a complete nerdgasm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but I was the anonymous coward that submitted this.
I've been lurking here for a dozen years or more and....I couldn't be more happy.I'm having a complete nerdgasm.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718756</id>
	<title>Re:Testable, currently unseen predictions.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263130920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Wake me when the guy comes up with at least one, and it's testable.</p></div><p>If it predicts exactly the same thing as current theory, then it (or, rather, the difference between them) isn't testable.  If it does so more elegantly, however, then it's still worthwhile - it provides us with a simpler way to predict what the universe does.</p><p>That said, it seems that they haven't reached this point yet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wake me when the guy comes up with at least one , and it 's testable.If it predicts exactly the same thing as current theory , then it ( or , rather , the difference between them ) is n't testable .
If it does so more elegantly , however , then it 's still worthwhile - it provides us with a simpler way to predict what the universe does.That said , it seems that they have n't reached this point yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wake me when the guy comes up with at least one, and it's testable.If it predicts exactly the same thing as current theory, then it (or, rather, the difference between them) isn't testable.
If it does so more elegantly, however, then it's still worthwhile - it provides us with a simpler way to predict what the universe does.That said, it seems that they haven't reached this point yet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717952</id>
	<title>Re:Stop posting articles from arXiv!</title>
	<author>digitig</author>
	<datestamp>1263124560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Rather than post completely uninformed comments on the subject, leave that to people in the field.</p></div><p>But how can they post completely uninformed comments? They're informed! No, sorry, but it's down to us!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rather than post completely uninformed comments on the subject , leave that to people in the field.But how can they post completely uninformed comments ?
They 're informed !
No , sorry , but it 's down to us !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rather than post completely uninformed comments on the subject, leave that to people in the field.But how can they post completely uninformed comments?
They're informed!
No, sorry, but it's down to us!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30727970</id>
	<title>So . . .</title>
	<author>uberjoe</author>
	<datestamp>1263201840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>will things still fall when I drop them? Ok good.</htmltext>
<tokenext>will things still fall when I drop them ?
Ok good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>will things still fall when I drop them?
Ok good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30720460</id>
	<title>Where is Isaac Asimov when you need him?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263152880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm hopelessly lost.  Where are the dudes that can describe this theory in words an average person can get a grip on?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm hopelessly lost .
Where are the dudes that can describe this theory in words an average person can get a grip on ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm hopelessly lost.
Where are the dudes that can describe this theory in words an average person can get a grip on?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719406</id>
	<title>Force?</title>
	<author>dandart</author>
	<datestamp>1263139080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since when was gravity a fundamental force? It's only the weak warping of spacetime, surely? There's no force involved. Matter warps spacetime. Spacetime bends matter. Somewhat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when was gravity a fundamental force ?
It 's only the weak warping of spacetime , surely ?
There 's no force involved .
Matter warps spacetime .
Spacetime bends matter .
Somewhat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when was gravity a fundamental force?
It's only the weak warping of spacetime, surely?
There's no force involved.
Matter warps spacetime.
Spacetime bends matter.
Somewhat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717044</id>
	<title>What is "information"? (In that context.)</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1263118320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of information in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings.</p></div><p>One of those words is not like the others. The word &ldquo;information&rdquo; does not fit in there. I can&rsquo;t put it into words, but I can show you what I mean:</p><p><strong>Bad:</strong> </p><p><div class="quote"><p>In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of <strong>thetans</strong> in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings.<br>In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of <strong>hope</strong> in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings.<br>In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of <strong>imagination</strong> in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings.</p></div><p> <strong>Good:</strong> </p><p><div class="quote"><p>In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of <strong>gluons</strong> in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings.<br>In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of <strong>$particleToBeFoundByLHC</strong> in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings.<br>In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of <strong>neutrinos</strong> in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings.</p></div><p>(Not saying that&rsquo;s right. Just saying this would be an argument that one could build something around. As opposed to the bad examples.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In his theory , gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of information in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings.One of those words is not like the others .
The word    information    does not fit in there .
I can    t put it into words , but I can show you what I mean : Bad : In his theory , gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of thetans in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings.In his theory , gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of hope in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings.In his theory , gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of imagination in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings .
Good : In his theory , gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of gluons in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings.In his theory , gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of $ particleToBeFoundByLHC in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings.In his theory , gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of neutrinos in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings .
( Not saying that    s right .
Just saying this would be an argument that one could build something around .
As opposed to the bad examples .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of information in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings.One of those words is not like the others.
The word “information” does not fit in there.
I can’t put it into words, but I can show you what I mean:Bad: In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of thetans in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings.In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of hope in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings.In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of imagination in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings.
Good: In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of gluons in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings.In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of $particleToBeFoundByLHC in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings.In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of neutrinos in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings.
(Not saying that’s right.
Just saying this would be an argument that one could build something around.
As opposed to the bad examples.
)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30721790</id>
	<title>Result!</title>
	<author>Richard Kirk</author>
	<datestamp>1263218280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The other big thing that comes out of this, if the reasoning isn't circular, is that intertial mass and gravitation mass are equal. This has always been found to be the case as far as can be measured, but gravity is weak and hard to measure in isolation, so there has always been a sneaking suspicion that somewhere there might be other stuff with a different gravitational field for its inertial mass. If you have dark matter, the worry is there might be a lot of funny stuff that we haven't looked at. If inertia and gravity both come from entropy, then there's only one sort of stuff, and one whole dimension of variables has gone. Wooo!
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The other big thing that comes out of this , if the reasoning is n't circular , is that intertial mass and gravitation mass are equal .
This has always been found to be the case as far as can be measured , but gravity is weak and hard to measure in isolation , so there has always been a sneaking suspicion that somewhere there might be other stuff with a different gravitational field for its inertial mass .
If you have dark matter , the worry is there might be a lot of funny stuff that we have n't looked at .
If inertia and gravity both come from entropy , then there 's only one sort of stuff , and one whole dimension of variables has gone .
Wooo !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The other big thing that comes out of this, if the reasoning isn't circular, is that intertial mass and gravitation mass are equal.
This has always been found to be the case as far as can be measured, but gravity is weak and hard to measure in isolation, so there has always been a sneaking suspicion that somewhere there might be other stuff with a different gravitational field for its inertial mass.
If you have dark matter, the worry is there might be a lot of funny stuff that we haven't looked at.
If inertia and gravity both come from entropy, then there's only one sort of stuff, and one whole dimension of variables has gone.
Wooo!
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717226</id>
	<title>Crap..</title>
	<author>JustShootMe</author>
	<datestamp>1263119700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now all the new-agers will jump on this and we'll never hear the end of it.</p><p>"But space is a hologram! Scientists said so!"</p><p>It very well may be, but new agers tend to jump on the most specious of claims and parrot them as fact...</p><p>(Thing is, I actually agree with the new-agers on some things, but I'm not going to try to prove it scientifically, I wonder if it's even possible!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now all the new-agers will jump on this and we 'll never hear the end of it .
" But space is a hologram !
Scientists said so !
" It very well may be , but new agers tend to jump on the most specious of claims and parrot them as fact... ( Thing is , I actually agree with the new-agers on some things , but I 'm not going to try to prove it scientifically , I wonder if it 's even possible !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now all the new-agers will jump on this and we'll never hear the end of it.
"But space is a hologram!
Scientists said so!
"It very well may be, but new agers tend to jump on the most specious of claims and parrot them as fact...(Thing is, I actually agree with the new-agers on some things, but I'm not going to try to prove it scientifically, I wonder if it's even possible!
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717318</id>
	<title>Re:Stop posting articles from arXiv!</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1263120300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't install things from SourceForge! Many excellent applications appear on SourceForge before being published to the Debian repositories, but some fairly questionable projects end up there as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't install things from SourceForge !
Many excellent applications appear on SourceForge before being published to the Debian repositories , but some fairly questionable projects end up there as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't install things from SourceForge!
Many excellent applications appear on SourceForge before being published to the Debian repositories, but some fairly questionable projects end up there as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717068</id>
	<title>Put theory to test in real world</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263118500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of information in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>I think we could put this to the test in the real world. We could gather various entities, some of which are known to have a very low concentration of information, like marketing people and bureaucrats, and see whether they cause a local reduction in gravity.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In his theory , gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of information in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings .
I think we could put this to the test in the real world .
We could gather various entities , some of which are known to have a very low concentration of information , like marketing people and bureaucrats , and see whether they cause a local reduction in gravity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of information in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings.
I think we could put this to the test in the real world.
We could gather various entities, some of which are known to have a very low concentration of information, like marketing people and bureaucrats, and see whether they cause a local reduction in gravity.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718602</id>
	<title>Re:Summary of comments</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263129300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>just because every science article like this has a high number of posts saying "correlation is not causation" does not mean that science articles cause "correlation is not causation" posts.  Correlation is not causation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>just because every science article like this has a high number of posts saying " correlation is not causation " does not mean that science articles cause " correlation is not causation " posts .
Correlation is not causation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just because every science article like this has a high number of posts saying "correlation is not causation" does not mean that science articles cause "correlation is not causation" posts.
Correlation is not causation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717200</id>
	<title>Re:Summary of comments</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263119520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Everyone knows the unifying force that holds the universe together is not gravity, but <i>the Force</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>Fixed that for ya.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone knows the unifying force that holds the universe together is not gravity , but the Force Fixed that for ya .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone knows the unifying force that holds the universe together is not gravity, but the Force Fixed that for ya.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718124</id>
	<title>Re:Comments from Lubos Motl</title>
	<author>Tomfrh</author>
	<datestamp>1263125640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>string theorist, formerly at Harvard</i><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...until they fired his crazy ass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>string theorist , formerly at Harvard ...until they fired his crazy ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>string theorist, formerly at Harvard ...until they fired his crazy ass.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30727856</id>
	<title>Thinking about this stuff heavy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263201420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is thinking about stuff
like this heavy lifting for
the brain?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is thinking about stuff like this heavy lifting for the brain ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is thinking about stuff
like this heavy lifting for
the brain?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718192</id>
	<title>Enevitable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263126000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I knew this whole "gravity thing" was just a fad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I knew this whole " gravity thing " was just a fad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I knew this whole "gravity thing" was just a fad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30722524</id>
	<title>Re:What is "information"? (In that context.)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263222420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The last thing that any scientist needs is a grounding in handwaving.</i></p><p>The AGW crowd seem to be doing okay. Their latest "proof" seems to consist of "look, we are climatologists, we know what we're talking about so you'll have to believe us. Show us the data ? What data, sorry it fell down the back of the sofa".</p><p>Global Warming my ass<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... have you *seen* the snow covering most of the northern hemisphere ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The last thing that any scientist needs is a grounding in handwaving.The AGW crowd seem to be doing okay .
Their latest " proof " seems to consist of " look , we are climatologists , we know what we 're talking about so you 'll have to believe us .
Show us the data ?
What data , sorry it fell down the back of the sofa " .Global Warming my ass ... have you * seen * the snow covering most of the northern hemisphere ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The last thing that any scientist needs is a grounding in handwaving.The AGW crowd seem to be doing okay.
Their latest "proof" seems to consist of "look, we are climatologists, we know what we're talking about so you'll have to believe us.
Show us the data ?
What data, sorry it fell down the back of the sofa".Global Warming my ass ... have you *seen* the snow covering most of the northern hemisphere ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30720136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717594</id>
	<title>Re:way cool</title>
	<author>JordanL</author>
	<datestamp>1263121860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I imagine if gravity can be described as information entropy between two bodies, that you'd see lots more research into manipulating gravity on local scales.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I imagine if gravity can be described as information entropy between two bodies , that you 'd see lots more research into manipulating gravity on local scales .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I imagine if gravity can be described as information entropy between two bodies, that you'd see lots more research into manipulating gravity on local scales.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30721136</id>
	<title>Re:Put theory to test in real world</title>
	<author>Psaakyrn</author>
	<datestamp>1263207120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, marketing people and bureaucrats are generally not taken seriously, and hence reduces the gravity of the situation.</p><p>However, lawyers are pretty darned smart, and also tends to increase the gravity of the situation. Note that this also occurs if a bureaucrat makes a point which is (possibly coincidentally) valid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , marketing people and bureaucrats are generally not taken seriously , and hence reduces the gravity of the situation.However , lawyers are pretty darned smart , and also tends to increase the gravity of the situation .
Note that this also occurs if a bureaucrat makes a point which is ( possibly coincidentally ) valid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, marketing people and bureaucrats are generally not taken seriously, and hence reduces the gravity of the situation.However, lawyers are pretty darned smart, and also tends to increase the gravity of the situation.
Note that this also occurs if a bureaucrat makes a point which is (possibly coincidentally) valid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718148</id>
	<title>Re:Golden ratio</title>
	<author>Smoke2Joints</author>
	<datestamp>1263125760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know youre joking, but wouldnt that be strange if it actually did?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know youre joking , but wouldnt that be strange if it actually did ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know youre joking, but wouldnt that be strange if it actually did?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30762132</id>
	<title>L Space</title>
	<author>NoobixCube</author>
	<datestamp>1263465780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A quick (ctrl + f in Firefox) search of this thread finds NO references to L Space!  What the hell is wrong with Slashdot these days?  Instead of parroting "That's no moon" every time someone sees a funny shaped rock in space, people should be pouncing on obvious things like this!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A quick ( ctrl + f in Firefox ) search of this thread finds NO references to L Space !
What the hell is wrong with Slashdot these days ?
Instead of parroting " That 's no moon " every time someone sees a funny shaped rock in space , people should be pouncing on obvious things like this !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A quick (ctrl + f in Firefox) search of this thread finds NO references to L Space!
What the hell is wrong with Slashdot these days?
Instead of parroting "That's no moon" every time someone sees a funny shaped rock in space, people should be pouncing on obvious things like this!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717158</id>
	<title>Re:Comments from Lubos Motl</title>
	<author>WilyCoder</author>
	<datestamp>1263119160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's 'undecided' because he hasn't been observed yet.</p><p>Thanks, I'll be here all week...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's 'undecided ' because he has n't been observed yet.Thanks , I 'll be here all week.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's 'undecided' because he hasn't been observed yet.Thanks, I'll be here all week...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30724566</id>
	<title>Bruce Harvey did this years ago</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263232380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He has unified nearly all of physics based on a pure charge model.<br>His model satisfies the behavior we observe as gravity and relativisitic effects, all without any fundamental gravity force.</p><p>http://www.bearsoft.co.uk/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He has unified nearly all of physics based on a pure charge model.His model satisfies the behavior we observe as gravity and relativisitic effects , all without any fundamental gravity force.http : //www.bearsoft.co.uk/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He has unified nearly all of physics based on a pure charge model.His model satisfies the behavior we observe as gravity and relativisitic effects, all without any fundamental gravity force.http://www.bearsoft.co.uk/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30721790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30721022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30720468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30724334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30729962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30721028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30720136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30722524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30730856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30736802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30722928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30724670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30731286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30721568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30721190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30723258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30720374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30720698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30725342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30723524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30721168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30721492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30730436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30721136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30727388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30721810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30720536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_10_1936240_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30729206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1936240.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718334
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1936240.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717010
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717374
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718602
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719972
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30723524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30729962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716788
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717788
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30721190
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30730436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717042
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717886
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30720374
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30727388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30736802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717220
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1936240.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30721022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717344
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1936240.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718996
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1936240.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719502
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1936240.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30726968
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1936240.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716766
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1936240.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716674
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1936240.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719352
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1936240.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30725342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30724334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30721136
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1936240.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30721492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719474
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1936240.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30722928
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1936240.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717176
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1936240.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30721384
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1936240.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716922
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1936240.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717546
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1936240.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717650
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1936240.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718410
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1936240.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717226
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1936240.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30720460
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1936240.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717172
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1936240.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718388
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1936240.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717626
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30720536
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1936240.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30729464
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1936240.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30723258
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1936240.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717330
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718684
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30720698
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719264
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30720136
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30722524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717372
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1936240.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30724566
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1936240.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716994
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1936240.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30720468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717008
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717528
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717682
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30721790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30731286
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1936240.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718148
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1936240.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719832
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1936240.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717222
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1936240.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30721168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30730856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30716972
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30729206
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717332
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719770
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717342
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718020
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717676
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717960
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30721810
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717940
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30721568
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718032
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718508
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717800
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718764
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30718010
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30724670
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30721028
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30717916
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719634
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_10_1936240.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_10_1936240.30719604
</commentlist>
</conversation>
