<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_24_1722250</id>
	<title>Colliding Particles Can Make Black Holes After All</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1264355760000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>cremeglace writes with this excerpt from ScienceNOW:
<i>"You've heard the controversy. Particle physicists predict the world's new highest-energy atom smasher, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) near Geneva, Switzerland, might create tiny black holes, which they say would be a fantastic discovery. Some doomsayers fear those black holes might gobble up the Earth &mdash; physicists say <a href="https://news.slashdot.org/story/08/06/23/134251/Why-the-LHC-Wont-Destroy-the-World">that's impossible</a> &mdash; and have petitioned the United Nations to stop the $5.5 billion LHC. Curiously, though, nobody had ever shown that the prevailing theory of gravity, Einstein's theory of general relativity, actually predicts that a black hole can be made this way. Now a computer model shows conclusively for the first time that <a href="http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2010/122/1">a particle collision really can make a black hole</a>."</i>
That said, they estimate the required energy for creating a black hole this way to be roughly "a quintillion times higher than the LHC's maximum"; though if one of the theories requiring compact extra dimensions is true, the energy could be lower.</htmltext>
<tokenext>cremeglace writes with this excerpt from ScienceNOW : " You 've heard the controversy .
Particle physicists predict the world 's new highest-energy atom smasher , the Large Hadron Collider ( LHC ) near Geneva , Switzerland , might create tiny black holes , which they say would be a fantastic discovery .
Some doomsayers fear those black holes might gobble up the Earth    physicists say that 's impossible    and have petitioned the United Nations to stop the $ 5.5 billion LHC .
Curiously , though , nobody had ever shown that the prevailing theory of gravity , Einstein 's theory of general relativity , actually predicts that a black hole can be made this way .
Now a computer model shows conclusively for the first time that a particle collision really can make a black hole .
" That said , they estimate the required energy for creating a black hole this way to be roughly " a quintillion times higher than the LHC 's maximum " ; though if one of the theories requiring compact extra dimensions is true , the energy could be lower .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>cremeglace writes with this excerpt from ScienceNOW:
"You've heard the controversy.
Particle physicists predict the world's new highest-energy atom smasher, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) near Geneva, Switzerland, might create tiny black holes, which they say would be a fantastic discovery.
Some doomsayers fear those black holes might gobble up the Earth — physicists say that's impossible — and have petitioned the United Nations to stop the $5.5 billion LHC.
Curiously, though, nobody had ever shown that the prevailing theory of gravity, Einstein's theory of general relativity, actually predicts that a black hole can be made this way.
Now a computer model shows conclusively for the first time that a particle collision really can make a black hole.
"
That said, they estimate the required energy for creating a black hole this way to be roughly "a quintillion times higher than the LHC's maximum"; though if one of the theories requiring compact extra dimensions is true, the energy could be lower.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30883728</id>
	<title>Re:The rise of ignorance...</title>
	<author>ArsonSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1264337400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's the whole doomsday thing that everyone's afraid of.  Look how many people were caught up in the Global Warming scam.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the whole doomsday thing that everyone 's afraid of .
Look how many people were caught up in the Global Warming scam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the whole doomsday thing that everyone's afraid of.
Look how many people were caught up in the Global Warming scam.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30882472</id>
	<title>Re:TO: Whom it may concern;</title>
	<author>tyrione</author>
	<datestamp>1264329540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm a pornographic film maker and I have just registered a screen-play with the <a href="http://www.uspto.gov/" title="uspto.gov">USPTO</a> [uspto.gov] and the <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/" title="copyright.gov">US Copyright office</a> [copyright.gov] for a creative work titled "The Large hardon Collider"depicting two white nude male actors running around a ring for the purpose of jousting with their abnormally large, erect penises. When the actor collides his penis with the opposing actor he is assigned a point for the collision, the first actor to achieve 5 points wins the privilege of engaging in the sex scene with a black actress. Any talk or writings involving "large hardon collider" or "large hardon collisions" with or without blackholes is a serious violation of my IP rights. My legal team is at this moment is preparing litigation against the more grievous violater one "Anonymous Coward".</p><p>Seriously if newstechnica.com habitually misspells the word <a href="http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/" title="web.cern.ch"> hadron</a> [web.cern.ch], which is so fundemental to the topic of the article, how can anybody give them any credibility?</p></div><p>Fundamental.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a pornographic film maker and I have just registered a screen-play with the USPTO [ uspto.gov ] and the US Copyright office [ copyright.gov ] for a creative work titled " The Large hardon Collider " depicting two white nude male actors running around a ring for the purpose of jousting with their abnormally large , erect penises .
When the actor collides his penis with the opposing actor he is assigned a point for the collision , the first actor to achieve 5 points wins the privilege of engaging in the sex scene with a black actress .
Any talk or writings involving " large hardon collider " or " large hardon collisions " with or without blackholes is a serious violation of my IP rights .
My legal team is at this moment is preparing litigation against the more grievous violater one " Anonymous Coward " .Seriously if newstechnica.com habitually misspells the word hadron [ web.cern.ch ] , which is so fundemental to the topic of the article , how can anybody give them any credibility ? Fundamental .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a pornographic film maker and I have just registered a screen-play with the USPTO [uspto.gov] and the US Copyright office [copyright.gov] for a creative work titled "The Large hardon Collider"depicting two white nude male actors running around a ring for the purpose of jousting with their abnormally large, erect penises.
When the actor collides his penis with the opposing actor he is assigned a point for the collision, the first actor to achieve 5 points wins the privilege of engaging in the sex scene with a black actress.
Any talk or writings involving "large hardon collider" or "large hardon collisions" with or without blackholes is a serious violation of my IP rights.
My legal team is at this moment is preparing litigation against the more grievous violater one "Anonymous Coward".Seriously if newstechnica.com habitually misspells the word  hadron [web.cern.ch], which is so fundemental to the topic of the article, how can anybody give them any credibility?Fundamental.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30885686</id>
	<title>Re:The rise of ignorance...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264351800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>you're better off buying a flying monkey proof undies</p></div><p>Amazon?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>you 're better off buying a flying monkey proof undiesAmazon ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you're better off buying a flying monkey proof undiesAmazon?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30891444</id>
	<title>Re:Proved conclusively?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264439880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you need to read the abstract again. It says that they have proven conclusively that Einstein's GR allows for the creation of black holes from particle collisions. It doesn't say anything about what will really happen. If you are wondering why you need a computer simulation to prove a theory has some phenomena embedded in it, instead of just doing the calculation to solve that on paper, it's because GR is so intractable that only solutions that are incredibly simple can be found (and even doing that can be complicated).</p><p>While I'm here, a few of other points:</p><p>1) Although GR is the best theory of gravity we have right now, we're pretty sure that it is not the right theory for quantum phenomena (like particle creation in the vacuum). So caveat emptor.</p><p>2) The smallest black holes that it seems reasonable to model with GR are much more massive (&gt; Planck mass) than anything the LHC can produce, which is probably why the calculation indicated such a high energy was needed.</p><p>3) If a Planck mass black hole was produced and did not evaporate immediately (two big ifs since this requires incredible amounts of energy compared to the LHC and for Hawking to be wrong), the black hole would sink to the center of the Earth and eat it from the inside, just as the doomsday prophets are predicting. However, I don't think any of them have calculated what happens then, or they wouldn't be worried. The cross-section of the black hole would be so small that it would fall right through atoms without eating anything the vast majority of the times it encountered one. My back of the envelope calculations indicate that the Earth would last much longer than the current age of the Universe if that were to happen. On the other hand, the Sun will turn into a red giant and fry the Earth in only five billion years. Are you afraid yet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you need to read the abstract again .
It says that they have proven conclusively that Einstein 's GR allows for the creation of black holes from particle collisions .
It does n't say anything about what will really happen .
If you are wondering why you need a computer simulation to prove a theory has some phenomena embedded in it , instead of just doing the calculation to solve that on paper , it 's because GR is so intractable that only solutions that are incredibly simple can be found ( and even doing that can be complicated ) .While I 'm here , a few of other points : 1 ) Although GR is the best theory of gravity we have right now , we 're pretty sure that it is not the right theory for quantum phenomena ( like particle creation in the vacuum ) .
So caveat emptor.2 ) The smallest black holes that it seems reasonable to model with GR are much more massive ( &gt; Planck mass ) than anything the LHC can produce , which is probably why the calculation indicated such a high energy was needed.3 ) If a Planck mass black hole was produced and did not evaporate immediately ( two big ifs since this requires incredible amounts of energy compared to the LHC and for Hawking to be wrong ) , the black hole would sink to the center of the Earth and eat it from the inside , just as the doomsday prophets are predicting .
However , I do n't think any of them have calculated what happens then , or they would n't be worried .
The cross-section of the black hole would be so small that it would fall right through atoms without eating anything the vast majority of the times it encountered one .
My back of the envelope calculations indicate that the Earth would last much longer than the current age of the Universe if that were to happen .
On the other hand , the Sun will turn into a red giant and fry the Earth in only five billion years .
Are you afraid yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you need to read the abstract again.
It says that they have proven conclusively that Einstein's GR allows for the creation of black holes from particle collisions.
It doesn't say anything about what will really happen.
If you are wondering why you need a computer simulation to prove a theory has some phenomena embedded in it, instead of just doing the calculation to solve that on paper, it's because GR is so intractable that only solutions that are incredibly simple can be found (and even doing that can be complicated).While I'm here, a few of other points:1) Although GR is the best theory of gravity we have right now, we're pretty sure that it is not the right theory for quantum phenomena (like particle creation in the vacuum).
So caveat emptor.2) The smallest black holes that it seems reasonable to model with GR are much more massive (&gt; Planck mass) than anything the LHC can produce, which is probably why the calculation indicated such a high energy was needed.3) If a Planck mass black hole was produced and did not evaporate immediately (two big ifs since this requires incredible amounts of energy compared to the LHC and for Hawking to be wrong), the black hole would sink to the center of the Earth and eat it from the inside, just as the doomsday prophets are predicting.
However, I don't think any of them have calculated what happens then, or they wouldn't be worried.
The cross-section of the black hole would be so small that it would fall right through atoms without eating anything the vast majority of the times it encountered one.
My back of the envelope calculations indicate that the Earth would last much longer than the current age of the Universe if that were to happen.
On the other hand, the Sun will turn into a red giant and fry the Earth in only five billion years.
Are you afraid yet?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30882374</id>
	<title>No</title>
	<author>A nonymous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1264329120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, they are so small that they will evaporate far too fast for any accidental growth to even be noticed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , they are so small that they will evaporate far too fast for any accidental growth to even be noticed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, they are so small that they will evaporate far too fast for any accidental growth to even be noticed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30887246</id>
	<title>Re:Please remember</title>
	<author>Psaakyrn</author>
	<datestamp>1264410780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which they admit to. Why else do they say that the energy required may be lower if there may exist multiple dimensions? Because they do not know, and hence require testing to know that.</p><p>What simulation provides is a visualization of what a theory would produce assuming all the factors they assumed are correct. This does not mean that the factors they assumed are correct are indeed correct, but it means that assuming those factors are correct, what the simulation predicted will happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which they admit to .
Why else do they say that the energy required may be lower if there may exist multiple dimensions ?
Because they do not know , and hence require testing to know that.What simulation provides is a visualization of what a theory would produce assuming all the factors they assumed are correct .
This does not mean that the factors they assumed are correct are indeed correct , but it means that assuming those factors are correct , what the simulation predicted will happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which they admit to.
Why else do they say that the energy required may be lower if there may exist multiple dimensions?
Because they do not know, and hence require testing to know that.What simulation provides is a visualization of what a theory would produce assuming all the factors they assumed are correct.
This does not mean that the factors they assumed are correct are indeed correct, but it means that assuming those factors are correct, what the simulation predicted will happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30884598</id>
	<title>Re:well duh...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264343760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>PS: IAAP</p></div><p>Okay, you are a pussy.  Not sure why you felt the need to share that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>PS : IAAPOkay , you are a pussy .
Not sure why you felt the need to share that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PS: IAAPOkay, you are a pussy.
Not sure why you felt the need to share that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30879982</id>
	<title>No harm, no foul</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264359780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it doesn't create a black hole, the earth isn't destroyed.<br>If it does create a black hole, and does destroy the earth, it won't matter, since we won't be alive to experience how horrible it will be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it does n't create a black hole , the earth is n't destroyed.If it does create a black hole , and does destroy the earth , it wo n't matter , since we wo n't be alive to experience how horrible it will be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it doesn't create a black hole, the earth isn't destroyed.If it does create a black hole, and does destroy the earth, it won't matter, since we won't be alive to experience how horrible it will be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880160</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>amazeofdeath</author>
	<datestamp>1264360440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"This would explain why people from the future are trying to stop "</p><p>No. The people from the future already know that it's impossible for LHC to create the black holes in question, as they have read this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" This would explain why people from the future are trying to stop " No .
The people from the future already know that it 's impossible for LHC to create the black holes in question , as they have read this / .
article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"This would explain why people from the future are trying to stop "No.
The people from the future already know that it's impossible for LHC to create the black holes in question, as they have read this /.
article.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880750</id>
	<title>Re:Please remember</title>
	<author>Gerafix</author>
	<datestamp>1264363080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The funny thing is some people will point to this model and say, "OMG SEE EVIDENCE OF TEH BLACKHOLEZ OF DOOM!!!" While in the same sentence say, "Models of Global Warming are just MODELS, made up COMPUTER SIMULATIONZ!!!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>The funny thing is some people will point to this model and say , " OMG SEE EVIDENCE OF TEH BLACKHOLEZ OF DOOM ! ! !
" While in the same sentence say , " Models of Global Warming are just MODELS , made up COMPUTER SIMULATIONZ ! ! !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The funny thing is some people will point to this model and say, "OMG SEE EVIDENCE OF TEH BLACKHOLEZ OF DOOM!!!
" While in the same sentence say, "Models of Global Warming are just MODELS, made up COMPUTER SIMULATIONZ!!!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881600</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264324380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The ~ is the important part. The collision needs to not be head-on by less than one part in a billion for the '~' not to imply escape velocity for something with proton mass. And this doesn't even depend on how you can't really produce a single non-interacting object from a p-p collision. So it wouldn't be at rest.</p><p>Second, there are things bigger than Earth (say, the Sun, or any other stars) which are being hit by a vastly larger number of cosmic rays. They are also thicker and denser -- for the vast rate of these interactions over their billion year history and the high target density after production, the black holes would have to be basically non-interacting for the Sun to exist. In which case there is no problem. Or they would have to not be produced. In which case there is still no problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ~ is the important part .
The collision needs to not be head-on by less than one part in a billion for the ' ~ ' not to imply escape velocity for something with proton mass .
And this does n't even depend on how you ca n't really produce a single non-interacting object from a p-p collision .
So it would n't be at rest.Second , there are things bigger than Earth ( say , the Sun , or any other stars ) which are being hit by a vastly larger number of cosmic rays .
They are also thicker and denser -- for the vast rate of these interactions over their billion year history and the high target density after production , the black holes would have to be basically non-interacting for the Sun to exist .
In which case there is no problem .
Or they would have to not be produced .
In which case there is still no problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ~ is the important part.
The collision needs to not be head-on by less than one part in a billion for the '~' not to imply escape velocity for something with proton mass.
And this doesn't even depend on how you can't really produce a single non-interacting object from a p-p collision.
So it wouldn't be at rest.Second, there are things bigger than Earth (say, the Sun, or any other stars) which are being hit by a vastly larger number of cosmic rays.
They are also thicker and denser -- for the vast rate of these interactions over their billion year history and the high target density after production, the black holes would have to be basically non-interacting for the Sun to exist.
In which case there is no problem.
Or they would have to not be produced.
In which case there is still no problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881400</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264366560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Our best theories suggest that if (and it's a big if) a  black hole forms, it  will evaporate in an instant.</p><p>We KNOW that much more powerful collisions occur all the time from cosmic rays. We also know that none of them have destroyed the Earth.</p><p>That, in turn, means either such black holes don't form even at much higher energies than we are anywhere near able to produce, or that they decay rapidly just as we theorize, or for some other reason it's nowhere near as bad as we think it could be.</p><p>There is no credible theory to even suggest that an LHC produced black hole would be any more problem than those produced naturally by cosmic radiation over the last few billion years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Our best theories suggest that if ( and it 's a big if ) a black hole forms , it will evaporate in an instant.We KNOW that much more powerful collisions occur all the time from cosmic rays .
We also know that none of them have destroyed the Earth.That , in turn , means either such black holes do n't form even at much higher energies than we are anywhere near able to produce , or that they decay rapidly just as we theorize , or for some other reason it 's nowhere near as bad as we think it could be.There is no credible theory to even suggest that an LHC produced black hole would be any more problem than those produced naturally by cosmic radiation over the last few billion years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our best theories suggest that if (and it's a big if) a  black hole forms, it  will evaporate in an instant.We KNOW that much more powerful collisions occur all the time from cosmic rays.
We also know that none of them have destroyed the Earth.That, in turn, means either such black holes don't form even at much higher energies than we are anywhere near able to produce, or that they decay rapidly just as we theorize, or for some other reason it's nowhere near as bad as we think it could be.There is no credible theory to even suggest that an LHC produced black hole would be any more problem than those produced naturally by cosmic radiation over the last few billion years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880350</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264361280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nope.<br>LHC creates holes with relative to earth speed~ 0, while in cosmic ray collisions the holes will have relative to earth speed ~= speed of light.<br>So if black holes are created on cosmic rays, these black holes will immediately leave earth, while in LHC the holes will stay here and grow...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope.LHC creates holes with relative to earth speed ~ 0 , while in cosmic ray collisions the holes will have relative to earth speed ~ = speed of light.So if black holes are created on cosmic rays , these black holes will immediately leave earth , while in LHC the holes will stay here and grow.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope.LHC creates holes with relative to earth speed~ 0, while in cosmic ray collisions the holes will have relative to earth speed ~= speed of light.So if black holes are created on cosmic rays, these black holes will immediately leave earth, while in LHC the holes will stay here and grow...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30912622</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264516200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This cosmic radiation argument seems flawed:</p><p>a black hole produced by a cosmic ray would still move at rougly the speed of light with respect to the Earth, so it would pass the planet from part to part, at most absorbing a particle in its run (even two is improbable: the cross section is really tiny)<br>The situation is different in the case of the LHC: a black hole would  be at rest relatively to the Earth!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This cosmic radiation argument seems flawed : a black hole produced by a cosmic ray would still move at rougly the speed of light with respect to the Earth , so it would pass the planet from part to part , at most absorbing a particle in its run ( even two is improbable : the cross section is really tiny ) The situation is different in the case of the LHC : a black hole would be at rest relatively to the Earth !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This cosmic radiation argument seems flawed:a black hole produced by a cosmic ray would still move at rougly the speed of light with respect to the Earth, so it would pass the planet from part to part, at most absorbing a particle in its run (even two is improbable: the cross section is really tiny)The situation is different in the case of the LHC: a black hole would  be at rest relatively to the Earth!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881054</id>
	<title>Re:Ignorance, plain and simple</title>
	<author>mdenham</author>
	<datestamp>1264364700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, the extreme case <i>if Hawking is right</i> is that there's at least one baryon with non-up/down quarks close enough for the black hole to absorb, which jumps its mass up by a factor of about 30 at a minimum.</p><p>The worst-case scenario is obviously "Hawking was wrong, and black holes don't evaporate", which means there was something else suppressing the production of quantum-scale black holes in the past.  (Even in this scenario, we have a few million years before things become problematic, I think.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the extreme case if Hawking is right is that there 's at least one baryon with non-up/down quarks close enough for the black hole to absorb , which jumps its mass up by a factor of about 30 at a minimum.The worst-case scenario is obviously " Hawking was wrong , and black holes do n't evaporate " , which means there was something else suppressing the production of quantum-scale black holes in the past .
( Even in this scenario , we have a few million years before things become problematic , I think .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the extreme case if Hawking is right is that there's at least one baryon with non-up/down quarks close enough for the black hole to absorb, which jumps its mass up by a factor of about 30 at a minimum.The worst-case scenario is obviously "Hawking was wrong, and black holes don't evaporate", which means there was something else suppressing the production of quantum-scale black holes in the past.
(Even in this scenario, we have a few million years before things become problematic, I think.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30882506</id>
	<title>Destroying This Village In Order to Prove It</title>
	<author>Doc Ruby</author>
	<datestamp>1264329660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Black holes are so dense that not only matter, not only light, but even information cannot escape beyond an event horizon. If running the collider proves correct the model with extra compact dimensions by creating black holes at LHC energies, those black holes might consume the proof. And the Earth with them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Black holes are so dense that not only matter , not only light , but even information can not escape beyond an event horizon .
If running the collider proves correct the model with extra compact dimensions by creating black holes at LHC energies , those black holes might consume the proof .
And the Earth with them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Black holes are so dense that not only matter, not only light, but even information cannot escape beyond an event horizon.
If running the collider proves correct the model with extra compact dimensions by creating black holes at LHC energies, those black holes might consume the proof.
And the Earth with them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30885132</id>
	<title>Re:What's your definition of possible</title>
	<author>Yaa 101</author>
	<datestamp>1264347180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me put it in other terms, to create a sustainable black hole you need the power of a supernova.</p><p>Believe me, you really have other problems then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me put it in other terms , to create a sustainable black hole you need the power of a supernova.Believe me , you really have other problems then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me put it in other terms, to create a sustainable black hole you need the power of a supernova.Believe me, you really have other problems then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30883498</id>
	<title>Re:The rise of ignorance...</title>
	<author>TheCabal</author>
	<datestamp>1264336140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People generally don't understand astrophysics. High school science classes generally concentrate on biology (baby pigs are cheap) and chemistry (most of the students probably understand how to make meth better than the teacher). Usually one or two experiments in physics, generally dropping things.</p><p>Secondly, people just understand that black holes are Bad Things, the "most destructive force in the universe" (thank you Disney) and that the universe will end with a Real Big One, because that's what they saw on the History Channel. I won't fault people too harshly for this, but it doesn't take a Einstein or Hawking to figure at least the basics out. I'm somewhat shocked that learned people are perpetuating this ballyhoo about black holes at the LHC.</p><p>People have a hard time with very small and very large things, so I usually put things in terms of the Sun. Yes, I know this is a very large thing, but they can at least see the sun and have an idea of its size. Should the Sun suddenly become a black hole, we won't get sucked in as most lay people think. A black hole with the mass of the Sun is still an object with the mass of the Sun and all the properties that go with it, such as gravitational pull. The earth will continue to orbit just as before, but it will become cold and dark. That's it. A black hole created at LHC from two particles will have the mass of those two particles.</p><p>And if I'm wrong, well we'll likely die so quickly that it wouldn't matter anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People generally do n't understand astrophysics .
High school science classes generally concentrate on biology ( baby pigs are cheap ) and chemistry ( most of the students probably understand how to make meth better than the teacher ) .
Usually one or two experiments in physics , generally dropping things.Secondly , people just understand that black holes are Bad Things , the " most destructive force in the universe " ( thank you Disney ) and that the universe will end with a Real Big One , because that 's what they saw on the History Channel .
I wo n't fault people too harshly for this , but it does n't take a Einstein or Hawking to figure at least the basics out .
I 'm somewhat shocked that learned people are perpetuating this ballyhoo about black holes at the LHC.People have a hard time with very small and very large things , so I usually put things in terms of the Sun .
Yes , I know this is a very large thing , but they can at least see the sun and have an idea of its size .
Should the Sun suddenly become a black hole , we wo n't get sucked in as most lay people think .
A black hole with the mass of the Sun is still an object with the mass of the Sun and all the properties that go with it , such as gravitational pull .
The earth will continue to orbit just as before , but it will become cold and dark .
That 's it .
A black hole created at LHC from two particles will have the mass of those two particles.And if I 'm wrong , well we 'll likely die so quickly that it would n't matter anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People generally don't understand astrophysics.
High school science classes generally concentrate on biology (baby pigs are cheap) and chemistry (most of the students probably understand how to make meth better than the teacher).
Usually one or two experiments in physics, generally dropping things.Secondly, people just understand that black holes are Bad Things, the "most destructive force in the universe" (thank you Disney) and that the universe will end with a Real Big One, because that's what they saw on the History Channel.
I won't fault people too harshly for this, but it doesn't take a Einstein or Hawking to figure at least the basics out.
I'm somewhat shocked that learned people are perpetuating this ballyhoo about black holes at the LHC.People have a hard time with very small and very large things, so I usually put things in terms of the Sun.
Yes, I know this is a very large thing, but they can at least see the sun and have an idea of its size.
Should the Sun suddenly become a black hole, we won't get sucked in as most lay people think.
A black hole with the mass of the Sun is still an object with the mass of the Sun and all the properties that go with it, such as gravitational pull.
The earth will continue to orbit just as before, but it will become cold and dark.
That's it.
A black hole created at LHC from two particles will have the mass of those two particles.And if I'm wrong, well we'll likely die so quickly that it wouldn't matter anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30883840</id>
	<title>Re:No harm, no foul</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264338120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know about you, but I'd rather not be destroyed just yet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about you , but I 'd rather not be destroyed just yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about you, but I'd rather not be destroyed just yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30879982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30883218</id>
	<title>Re:gazillion?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264334400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881866</id>
	<title>Simple rule:</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1264325940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every day, thousands of particles hit earth at speeds <em>MUCH</em> faster than what the LHC can do.<br>They create black holes.<br>If anything could have happened, we would all be dead for a looong time. In fact the universe would never have developed any planets, if this would create black holes.</p><p>Anyone who still mentions it... even if it&rsquo;s only to say that there are some crazy people who are crazy... deserves to be bitch-smiten with a wet crocodile.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every day , thousands of particles hit earth at speeds MUCH faster than what the LHC can do.They create black holes.If anything could have happened , we would all be dead for a looong time .
In fact the universe would never have developed any planets , if this would create black holes.Anyone who still mentions it... even if it    s only to say that there are some crazy people who are crazy... deserves to be bitch-smiten with a wet crocodile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every day, thousands of particles hit earth at speeds MUCH faster than what the LHC can do.They create black holes.If anything could have happened, we would all be dead for a looong time.
In fact the universe would never have developed any planets, if this would create black holes.Anyone who still mentions it... even if it’s only to say that there are some crazy people who are crazy... deserves to be bitch-smiten with a wet crocodile.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880008</id>
	<title>Large Hardon Collider could corrupt civilisation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264359840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The <a href="http://newstechnica.com/2008/09/09/large-hardon-collider-could-corrupt-civilisation/" title="newstechnica.com" rel="nofollow">Large Hardon Collider</a> [newstechnica.com], to be turned on tomorrow, is designed to pump various types of hardon up to huge energies before banging them together. However, many concerned citizens without the personal experience or understanding of what hardons do worry at the idea of the large hardons being sucked deep into a black hole.</p><p>The device will push large, energised hardons through a ring repeatedly, faster and faster, as smoothly and tightly as possible, until they clash and spray matter in all directions. "It's nothing that cosmic rays don't do all the time all over the place," reassured a particularly buff scientist. "It's perfectly right and natural."</p><p>Low-energy hardon physics and the temperature dependence of hardon production are well understood, as is the process of a hardon smoothly entering the nucleus. But some question what may happen at greater, hotter energies.</p><p>Church leaders have come out at the device. "They're the <i>same polarity!"</i> said Pope Palpatine XVI.  The Church worries that strange matter may recruit normal matter and turn it strange.</p><p>The Large Hardon Collider was to launch in May, but this has been delayed. "I'm so sorry," stammered a scientist, "this has never happened to us before."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Large Hardon Collider [ newstechnica.com ] , to be turned on tomorrow , is designed to pump various types of hardon up to huge energies before banging them together .
However , many concerned citizens without the personal experience or understanding of what hardons do worry at the idea of the large hardons being sucked deep into a black hole.The device will push large , energised hardons through a ring repeatedly , faster and faster , as smoothly and tightly as possible , until they clash and spray matter in all directions .
" It 's nothing that cosmic rays do n't do all the time all over the place , " reassured a particularly buff scientist .
" It 's perfectly right and natural .
" Low-energy hardon physics and the temperature dependence of hardon production are well understood , as is the process of a hardon smoothly entering the nucleus .
But some question what may happen at greater , hotter energies.Church leaders have come out at the device .
" They 're the same polarity !
" said Pope Palpatine XVI .
The Church worries that strange matter may recruit normal matter and turn it strange.The Large Hardon Collider was to launch in May , but this has been delayed .
" I 'm so sorry , " stammered a scientist , " this has never happened to us before .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Large Hardon Collider [newstechnica.com], to be turned on tomorrow, is designed to pump various types of hardon up to huge energies before banging them together.
However, many concerned citizens without the personal experience or understanding of what hardons do worry at the idea of the large hardons being sucked deep into a black hole.The device will push large, energised hardons through a ring repeatedly, faster and faster, as smoothly and tightly as possible, until they clash and spray matter in all directions.
"It's nothing that cosmic rays don't do all the time all over the place," reassured a particularly buff scientist.
"It's perfectly right and natural.
"Low-energy hardon physics and the temperature dependence of hardon production are well understood, as is the process of a hardon smoothly entering the nucleus.
But some question what may happen at greater, hotter energies.Church leaders have come out at the device.
"They're the same polarity!
" said Pope Palpatine XVI.
The Church worries that strange matter may recruit normal matter and turn it strange.The Large Hardon Collider was to launch in May, but this has been delayed.
"I'm so sorry," stammered a scientist, "this has never happened to us before.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881642</id>
	<title>Yay! We can make the universe sigsegv</title>
	<author>Greyfox</author>
	<datestamp>1264324620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now we just need to figure out how to inject some code for a buffer overflow attack so we can obtain root access!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now we just need to figure out how to inject some code for a buffer overflow attack so we can obtain root access !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now we just need to figure out how to inject some code for a buffer overflow attack so we can obtain root access!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30895558</id>
	<title>Re:Ignorance, plain and simple</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1264413240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; If we were to collide two protons with enough energy to produce a black<br>&gt; hole, you would end up with (very temporarily) a black hole that has the<br>&gt; mass (and thus gravitational pull) of two protons, with an electric charge<br>&gt; of +2.</p><p>Well no, because the mass available for the formation of the hole would include the mass of the kinetic energy of the colliding particles, which is much larger than the rest masses.</p><p>However, you suggest an interesting possibility.  If the hole was charged it might interact with an appropriate number of electrons to form a bizarre kind of atom which might even be stable, preventing the hole from acquiring more mass.</p><p>A negatively charged hole might acquire a "halo" of "orbiting" protons, forming an even more bizarre "atom".</p><p>Wild, baseless speculation (wilder than the above, I mean): could such bizarre "atoms" suppress Hawking radiation and thus stablize the hole?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; If we were to collide two protons with enough energy to produce a black &gt; hole , you would end up with ( very temporarily ) a black hole that has the &gt; mass ( and thus gravitational pull ) of two protons , with an electric charge &gt; of + 2.Well no , because the mass available for the formation of the hole would include the mass of the kinetic energy of the colliding particles , which is much larger than the rest masses.However , you suggest an interesting possibility .
If the hole was charged it might interact with an appropriate number of electrons to form a bizarre kind of atom which might even be stable , preventing the hole from acquiring more mass.A negatively charged hole might acquire a " halo " of " orbiting " protons , forming an even more bizarre " atom " .Wild , baseless speculation ( wilder than the above , I mean ) : could such bizarre " atoms " suppress Hawking radiation and thus stablize the hole ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; If we were to collide two protons with enough energy to produce a black&gt; hole, you would end up with (very temporarily) a black hole that has the&gt; mass (and thus gravitational pull) of two protons, with an electric charge&gt; of +2.Well no, because the mass available for the formation of the hole would include the mass of the kinetic energy of the colliding particles, which is much larger than the rest masses.However, you suggest an interesting possibility.
If the hole was charged it might interact with an appropriate number of electrons to form a bizarre kind of atom which might even be stable, preventing the hole from acquiring more mass.A negatively charged hole might acquire a "halo" of "orbiting" protons, forming an even more bizarre "atom".Wild, baseless speculation (wilder than the above, I mean): could such bizarre "atoms" suppress Hawking radiation and thus stablize the hole?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30884574</id>
	<title>Re:Self-contradictions</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1264343640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm sure the research modeling is interesting and worthwhile, and it's just the writeup that is idiotic. But y'know *computer* models do not ever show anything *conclusively*.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Oh, come on, they show conclusively what that computer model will do when run on that computer at that moment. You can't argue with it, you know I'm right!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure the research modeling is interesting and worthwhile , and it 's just the writeup that is idiotic .
But y'know * computer * models do not ever show anything * conclusively * .
Oh , come on , they show conclusively what that computer model will do when run on that computer at that moment .
You ca n't argue with it , you know I 'm right !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure the research modeling is interesting and worthwhile, and it's just the writeup that is idiotic.
But y'know *computer* models do not ever show anything *conclusively*.
Oh, come on, they show conclusively what that computer model will do when run on that computer at that moment.
You can't argue with it, you know I'm right!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30884384</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>amRadioHed</author>
	<datestamp>1264342140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No matter how fast they are moving they still have an entire planet to pass through. That's not easy to do for particles with mass, even neutrinos don't make it through all the time. Micro black holes also potentially have charge which would make it much, much more unlikely.</p><p>If the micro black holes are really dangerous then it would only take one getting stuck in the earth's mass over the planets history to destroy it, and that doesn't seem to have happened.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No matter how fast they are moving they still have an entire planet to pass through .
That 's not easy to do for particles with mass , even neutrinos do n't make it through all the time .
Micro black holes also potentially have charge which would make it much , much more unlikely.If the micro black holes are really dangerous then it would only take one getting stuck in the earth 's mass over the planets history to destroy it , and that does n't seem to have happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No matter how fast they are moving they still have an entire planet to pass through.
That's not easy to do for particles with mass, even neutrinos don't make it through all the time.
Micro black holes also potentially have charge which would make it much, much more unlikely.If the micro black holes are really dangerous then it would only take one getting stuck in the earth's mass over the planets history to destroy it, and that doesn't seem to have happened.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30879990</id>
	<title>This sound like the begining of a bad...</title>
	<author>JoshDD</author>
	<datestamp>1264359780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>sci/fi movie.</htmltext>
<tokenext>sci/fi movie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sci/fi movie.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880214</id>
	<title>well duh...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264360680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>basically what the TFA is saying is that if you put a lot of energy in a very small spot, you get a black hole...</p><p>in other words:</p><p>E=mc<br>+<br>high mass density = black hole</p><p>Nothing to see here, move along</p><p>PS: IAAP</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>basically what the TFA is saying is that if you put a lot of energy in a very small spot , you get a black hole...in other words : E = mc + high mass density = black holeNothing to see here , move alongPS : IAAP</tokentext>
<sentencetext>basically what the TFA is saying is that if you put a lot of energy in a very small spot, you get a black hole...in other words:E=mc+high mass density = black holeNothing to see here, move alongPS: IAAP</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881108</id>
	<title>Re:What's your definition of possible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264365060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe you should review the nuances of "possible", "plausible", and "probable."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe you should review the nuances of " possible " , " plausible " , and " probable .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe you should review the nuances of "possible", "plausible", and "probable.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881162</id>
	<title>Self-contradictions</title>
	<author>Lulu of the Lotus-Ea</author>
	<datestamp>1264365360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gee, what's wrong with this sentence:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Now a computer model shows conclusively...</p><p>I'm sure the research modeling is interesting and worthwhile, and it's just the writeup that is idiotic.  But y'know *computer* models do not ever show anything *conclusively*.  The model is only as good as the assumptions that went into designing it.  Those might be good and reasonable guesses, but you are only doing the model because you *haven't* (or can't) observe the actual phenomenon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gee , what 's wrong with this sentence :       Now a computer model shows conclusively...I 'm sure the research modeling is interesting and worthwhile , and it 's just the writeup that is idiotic .
But y'know * computer * models do not ever show anything * conclusively * .
The model is only as good as the assumptions that went into designing it .
Those might be good and reasonable guesses , but you are only doing the model because you * have n't * ( or ca n't ) observe the actual phenomenon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gee, what's wrong with this sentence:
      Now a computer model shows conclusively...I'm sure the research modeling is interesting and worthwhile, and it's just the writeup that is idiotic.
But y'know *computer* models do not ever show anything *conclusively*.
The model is only as good as the assumptions that went into designing it.
Those might be good and reasonable guesses, but you are only doing the model because you *haven't* (or can't) observe the actual phenomenon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30885796</id>
	<title>Re:Proved conclusively?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264352640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A proof is not a discovery.  It is only a conclusive explanation.  Its always based on what you already know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A proof is not a discovery .
It is only a conclusive explanation .
Its always based on what you already know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A proof is not a discovery.
It is only a conclusive explanation.
Its always based on what you already know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30884374</id>
	<title>Re:Please remember</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1264342080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And oddly enough there are people who will swap those two positions, and dismiss this (rightfully) as computationally sophisticated speculation, while for some reason taking arguably even less physical GCMs seriously.  This simulation probably conserves energy and has reasonably physical boundary conditions, and doesn't parameterize away everything that happens on scales that are inconveniently difficult to model.</p><p>GCMs are still on basic theoretical grounds arguably better models than this one, so it is possible to take them somewhat seriously, but as a computational physicist my take on comparative plausibility is:</p><p>*xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxGCMxxxExperiment/observation</p><p>where * is this black hole speculation and each "x" represents an order of magnitude or so.</p><p>Anyone who is properly sceptical of computer models as arbiters of reality ought to have as their very first reflex the same dismissive attitude toward GCMs as they have toward this result, and only when GCMs have demonstrated the ability to predict long-term climate shift in the past (which they have notably failed to do in a couple of important cases) should they serve as a basis for public policy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And oddly enough there are people who will swap those two positions , and dismiss this ( rightfully ) as computationally sophisticated speculation , while for some reason taking arguably even less physical GCMs seriously .
This simulation probably conserves energy and has reasonably physical boundary conditions , and does n't parameterize away everything that happens on scales that are inconveniently difficult to model.GCMs are still on basic theoretical grounds arguably better models than this one , so it is possible to take them somewhat seriously , but as a computational physicist my take on comparative plausibility is : * xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxGCMxxxExperiment/observationwhere * is this black hole speculation and each " x " represents an order of magnitude or so.Anyone who is properly sceptical of computer models as arbiters of reality ought to have as their very first reflex the same dismissive attitude toward GCMs as they have toward this result , and only when GCMs have demonstrated the ability to predict long-term climate shift in the past ( which they have notably failed to do in a couple of important cases ) should they serve as a basis for public policy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And oddly enough there are people who will swap those two positions, and dismiss this (rightfully) as computationally sophisticated speculation, while for some reason taking arguably even less physical GCMs seriously.
This simulation probably conserves energy and has reasonably physical boundary conditions, and doesn't parameterize away everything that happens on scales that are inconveniently difficult to model.GCMs are still on basic theoretical grounds arguably better models than this one, so it is possible to take them somewhat seriously, but as a computational physicist my take on comparative plausibility is:*xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxGCMxxxExperiment/observationwhere * is this black hole speculation and each "x" represents an order of magnitude or so.Anyone who is properly sceptical of computer models as arbiters of reality ought to have as their very first reflex the same dismissive attitude toward GCMs as they have toward this result, and only when GCMs have demonstrated the ability to predict long-term climate shift in the past (which they have notably failed to do in a couple of important cases) should they serve as a basis for public policy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30884518</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>nacturation</author>
	<datestamp>1264343220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Are you aware that the particles in the LHC are moving at ~= the speed of light?</p></div><p>In opposite directions.  Take one particle with its velocity of <b>-c, clockwise</b> and the other particle with its velocity <b>+c, counter-clockwise</b> and collide them together.  What is the sum of their velocities?</p><p>Upside-down text at the bottom: The answer is a velocity of ~0, relative to the earth.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you aware that the particles in the LHC are moving at ~ = the speed of light ? In opposite directions .
Take one particle with its velocity of -c , clockwise and the other particle with its velocity + c , counter-clockwise and collide them together .
What is the sum of their velocities ? Upside-down text at the bottom : The answer is a velocity of ~ 0 , relative to the earth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you aware that the particles in the LHC are moving at ~= the speed of light?In opposite directions.
Take one particle with its velocity of -c, clockwise and the other particle with its velocity +c, counter-clockwise and collide them together.
What is the sum of their velocities?Upside-down text at the bottom: The answer is a velocity of ~0, relative to the earth.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881734</id>
	<title>If we destroy the earth in an instant...</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1264325220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will there be anyone left to care?</p><p>I can think of a lot less pleasant ways to go out as a species<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... nuclear Armageddon and not-quite-instant-extinction-sized asteroid impacts come to mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will there be anyone left to care ? I can think of a lot less pleasant ways to go out as a species ... nuclear Armageddon and not-quite-instant-extinction-sized asteroid impacts come to mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will there be anyone left to care?I can think of a lot less pleasant ways to go out as a species ... nuclear Armageddon and not-quite-instant-extinction-sized asteroid impacts come to mind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30886018</id>
	<title>Re:Self-contradictions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264354920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But y'know *computer* models do not ever show anything (except AGW) *conclusively*.</p><p>There, fixed that for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But y'know * computer * models do not ever show anything ( except AGW ) * conclusively * .There , fixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But y'know *computer* models do not ever show anything (except AGW) *conclusively*.There, fixed that for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881684</id>
	<title>Re:Large Hardon Collider could corrupt civilisatio</title>
	<author>Simon (S2)</author>
	<datestamp>1264324920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i love how you comment was modded +5: Offtopic. This is slashdot<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i love how you comment was modded + 5 : Offtopic .
This is slashdot : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i love how you comment was modded +5: Offtopic.
This is slashdot :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880610</id>
	<title>Re:Please remember</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264362480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7tPTHV2mYk" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">Actual computer simulation</a> [youtube.com] FUUUUUUCKKKKK!!!!!!!!11111!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actual computer simulation [ youtube.com ] FUUUUUUCKKKKK ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 11111 ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actual computer simulation [youtube.com] FUUUUUUCKKKKK!!!!!!!!11111!!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880966</id>
	<title>Re:Please remember</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264364220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And perhaps one should ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS remember that the computer model only predicts what might happen given a whole string of assumptions.</p><p>Given enough programming skill I can make a computer model predict anything I want. That won't make it a reality though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And perhaps one should ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS remember that the computer model only predicts what might happen given a whole string of assumptions.Given enough programming skill I can make a computer model predict anything I want .
That wo n't make it a reality though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And perhaps one should ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS remember that the computer model only predicts what might happen given a whole string of assumptions.Given enough programming skill I can make a computer model predict anything I want.
That won't make it a reality though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880184</id>
	<title>The black holes are not dangerous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264360500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the LHC does make a black hole, what will be the mass of it? It will only have the mass of the few particles that collided to create it. It's mass will be tiny. It will be like a grain of sand. Now, what is the gravitational attraction force caused by a grain of sand? If you've ever been near a grain of sand, you know that it's basicly none. So, this black hole won't actually have any ability to suck in matter. It will fall into the center of the earth and stay there until it evaporates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the LHC does make a black hole , what will be the mass of it ?
It will only have the mass of the few particles that collided to create it .
It 's mass will be tiny .
It will be like a grain of sand .
Now , what is the gravitational attraction force caused by a grain of sand ?
If you 've ever been near a grain of sand , you know that it 's basicly none .
So , this black hole wo n't actually have any ability to suck in matter .
It will fall into the center of the earth and stay there until it evaporates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the LHC does make a black hole, what will be the mass of it?
It will only have the mass of the few particles that collided to create it.
It's mass will be tiny.
It will be like a grain of sand.
Now, what is the gravitational attraction force caused by a grain of sand?
If you've ever been near a grain of sand, you know that it's basicly none.
So, this black hole won't actually have any ability to suck in matter.
It will fall into the center of the earth and stay there until it evaporates.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30886716</id>
	<title>knee jerk i guess..</title>
	<author>MobileTatsu-NJG</author>
	<datestamp>1264361940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That said, they estimate the required energy for creating a black hole this way to be roughly "a quintillion times higher than the LHC's maximum"</p></div><p>A quintillion?  Really?  With that much energy, do you really need a particle accelerator?  I mean, couldn't I risk creating a black-hole by starting my car with a quintillion times more LHC energy?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That said , they estimate the required energy for creating a black hole this way to be roughly " a quintillion times higher than the LHC 's maximum " A quintillion ?
Really ? With that much energy , do you really need a particle accelerator ?
I mean , could n't I risk creating a black-hole by starting my car with a quintillion times more LHC energy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That said, they estimate the required energy for creating a black hole this way to be roughly "a quintillion times higher than the LHC's maximum"A quintillion?
Really?  With that much energy, do you really need a particle accelerator?
I mean, couldn't I risk creating a black-hole by starting my car with a quintillion times more LHC energy?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881660</id>
	<title>LARGE HARDON COLIDER</title>
	<author>Jorl17</author>
	<datestamp>1264324800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now we can have HARDON fun!<br>
Seriously, what's with all the hardon!=hadron stuff?<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>/me is mad at suckass writers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now we can have HARDON fun !
Seriously , what 's with all the hardon ! = hadron stuff ?
/me is mad at suckass writers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now we can have HARDON fun!
Seriously, what's with all the hardon!=hadron stuff?
/me is mad at suckass writers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30888248</id>
	<title>Re:Proved conclusively?</title>
	<author>delt0r</author>
	<datestamp>1264423380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't see how you can prove something conclusively in silico,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>It works for climatologists.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see how you can prove something conclusively in silico , ...It works for climatologists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see how you can prove something conclusively in silico, ...It works for climatologists.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30883776</id>
	<title>To be up to date</title>
	<author>Stonefred</author>
	<datestamp>1264337700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>FYI: <a href="http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/" title="hasthelarg...rldyet.com" rel="nofollow">http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/</a> [hasthelarg...rldyet.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>FYI : http : //hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/ [ hasthelarg...rldyet.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FYI: http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/ [hasthelarg...rldyet.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30883338</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264335180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>While you were reading this comment, a couple of particles with this energy PASSED THROUGHT YOU</p></div></blockquote><p>When do I get my awesome superpowers that may be an object of burden later on, but right now allow me to fight the supervillain that was created at roughly the same time by the same phenomena?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While you were reading this comment , a couple of particles with this energy PASSED THROUGHT YOUWhen do I get my awesome superpowers that may be an object of burden later on , but right now allow me to fight the supervillain that was created at roughly the same time by the same phenomena ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While you were reading this comment, a couple of particles with this energy PASSED THROUGHT YOUWhen do I get my awesome superpowers that may be an object of burden later on, but right now allow me to fight the supervillain that was created at roughly the same time by the same phenomena?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881864</id>
	<title>Re:Ignorance, plain and simple</title>
	<author>Strangely Familiar</author>
	<datestamp>1264325940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. The charge of the black hole is completely irrelevant. Remember how a black hole got it's name? Not even light, a time-varying electromagnetic field, can escape it. Likewise, an electrostatic field can't escape a black hole, because of the extreme local curvature of space-time. </p><p>

2. "Evaporation" of black holes by Hawking radiation depends on particle/antiparticle pairs being created spontaneously from the vacuum at the event horizon of the black hole, with one half of the pair being captured, and the other half radiating away. Hawking makes an energy conservation argument that this process constitutes evaporation. It obviously has not been tested. Calculating the rate of evaporation would not be trivial, and would involve many "assumptions" (e.g., guessing).  A convincing and accepted theory of quantum gravity has not yet emerged. Which leads to...</p><p>

3. In the absence of an accepted, experimentally verified theory of quantum gravity, all your name calling ("Luddites") and hand waving ("an exciting, interesting, and completely harmless development") will probably not convince anybody, one way or the other. And finally... </p><p>

4. People who live in glass pots shouldn't get stoned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
The charge of the black hole is completely irrelevant .
Remember how a black hole got it 's name ?
Not even light , a time-varying electromagnetic field , can escape it .
Likewise , an electrostatic field ca n't escape a black hole , because of the extreme local curvature of space-time .
2. " Evaporation " of black holes by Hawking radiation depends on particle/antiparticle pairs being created spontaneously from the vacuum at the event horizon of the black hole , with one half of the pair being captured , and the other half radiating away .
Hawking makes an energy conservation argument that this process constitutes evaporation .
It obviously has not been tested .
Calculating the rate of evaporation would not be trivial , and would involve many " assumptions " ( e.g. , guessing ) .
A convincing and accepted theory of quantum gravity has not yet emerged .
Which leads to.. . 3. In the absence of an accepted , experimentally verified theory of quantum gravity , all your name calling ( " Luddites " ) and hand waving ( " an exciting , interesting , and completely harmless development " ) will probably not convince anybody , one way or the other .
And finally.. . 4. People who live in glass pots should n't get stoned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
The charge of the black hole is completely irrelevant.
Remember how a black hole got it's name?
Not even light, a time-varying electromagnetic field, can escape it.
Likewise, an electrostatic field can't escape a black hole, because of the extreme local curvature of space-time.
2. "Evaporation" of black holes by Hawking radiation depends on particle/antiparticle pairs being created spontaneously from the vacuum at the event horizon of the black hole, with one half of the pair being captured, and the other half radiating away.
Hawking makes an energy conservation argument that this process constitutes evaporation.
It obviously has not been tested.
Calculating the rate of evaporation would not be trivial, and would involve many "assumptions" (e.g., guessing).
A convincing and accepted theory of quantum gravity has not yet emerged.
Which leads to...

3. In the absence of an accepted, experimentally verified theory of quantum gravity, all your name calling ("Luddites") and hand waving ("an exciting, interesting, and completely harmless development") will probably not convince anybody, one way or the other.
And finally... 

4. People who live in glass pots shouldn't get stoned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881650</id>
	<title>Re:The rise of ignorance...</title>
	<author>tftp</author>
	<datestamp>1264324740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>If something that like that could be created by these cosmically insignificant energy levels and actually survive long enough to eat planets, the universe would already be pretty darn empty.</i>
</p><p>
You know, the universe *is* pretty darn empty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If something that like that could be created by these cosmically insignificant energy levels and actually survive long enough to eat planets , the universe would already be pretty darn empty .
You know , the universe * is * pretty darn empty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If something that like that could be created by these cosmically insignificant energy levels and actually survive long enough to eat planets, the universe would already be pretty darn empty.
You know, the universe *is* pretty darn empty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880246</id>
	<title>Proved conclusively?</title>
	<author>newcastlejon</author>
	<datestamp>1264360860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see how you can prove something conclusively in silico, you put in what you know and you get a distillation of it out. How can you discover* completely new physics when the computer can only start with a potentially incorrect/inaccurate theory and make deterministic calculations based on that input? I mean, you can't get out more than you put in, can you?</p><p>Caveat: I can easily accept that collisions of the same energy take place all the time in nature, even if a hole were somehow formed I have far more confidence in Hawking than someone who can scream "Think of the Children!!!" while keeping a straight face.</p><p>*There's no reason why you can't put in your theory and come out with a simulation that doesn't resemble how things happen in nature and so begin to disprove a theory. That being said, if CERN could have shown the existence of the Higgs boson using only simulations then they might not have bothered with the LHC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see how you can prove something conclusively in silico , you put in what you know and you get a distillation of it out .
How can you discover * completely new physics when the computer can only start with a potentially incorrect/inaccurate theory and make deterministic calculations based on that input ?
I mean , you ca n't get out more than you put in , can you ? Caveat : I can easily accept that collisions of the same energy take place all the time in nature , even if a hole were somehow formed I have far more confidence in Hawking than someone who can scream " Think of the Children ! ! !
" while keeping a straight face .
* There 's no reason why you ca n't put in your theory and come out with a simulation that does n't resemble how things happen in nature and so begin to disprove a theory .
That being said , if CERN could have shown the existence of the Higgs boson using only simulations then they might not have bothered with the LHC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see how you can prove something conclusively in silico, you put in what you know and you get a distillation of it out.
How can you discover* completely new physics when the computer can only start with a potentially incorrect/inaccurate theory and make deterministic calculations based on that input?
I mean, you can't get out more than you put in, can you?Caveat: I can easily accept that collisions of the same energy take place all the time in nature, even if a hole were somehow formed I have far more confidence in Hawking than someone who can scream "Think of the Children!!!
" while keeping a straight face.
*There's no reason why you can't put in your theory and come out with a simulation that doesn't resemble how things happen in nature and so begin to disprove a theory.
That being said, if CERN could have shown the existence of the Higgs boson using only simulations then they might not have bothered with the LHC.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30883150</id>
	<title>Re:What's your definition of possible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264333980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My car is a pig and it certainly can fly</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My car is a pig and it certainly can fly</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My car is a pig and it certainly can fly</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30896088</id>
	<title>Re:The rise of ignorance...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264415340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do not have to read the rest of your comment since the first part is nothing more than you saying everyone is so incredibly stupid compared to you.</p><p>If you had any intelligence at all, even a fraction, you would know that this type of garbage speech is something any 5 year old kid could write also. It does nothing to convince anyone of anything. The only purpose it serves is to make you feel a fake sense of pride by calling everyone else stupid.</p><p>Go fuck yourself then pick up a book and learn something. The Internet already has plenty of comments like yours from other kids living in their mom's basement.</p><p>Get a real life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do not have to read the rest of your comment since the first part is nothing more than you saying everyone is so incredibly stupid compared to you.If you had any intelligence at all , even a fraction , you would know that this type of garbage speech is something any 5 year old kid could write also .
It does nothing to convince anyone of anything .
The only purpose it serves is to make you feel a fake sense of pride by calling everyone else stupid.Go fuck yourself then pick up a book and learn something .
The Internet already has plenty of comments like yours from other kids living in their mom 's basement.Get a real life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do not have to read the rest of your comment since the first part is nothing more than you saying everyone is so incredibly stupid compared to you.If you had any intelligence at all, even a fraction, you would know that this type of garbage speech is something any 5 year old kid could write also.
It does nothing to convince anyone of anything.
The only purpose it serves is to make you feel a fake sense of pride by calling everyone else stupid.Go fuck yourself then pick up a book and learn something.
The Internet already has plenty of comments like yours from other kids living in their mom's basement.Get a real life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881408</id>
	<title>Re:The rise of ignorance...</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1264366560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It's amazing how so many people who never passed a high school science class "</p><p>Why bother with science when superstition answers all?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It 's amazing how so many people who never passed a high school science class " Why bother with science when superstition answers all ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It's amazing how so many people who never passed a high school science class "Why bother with science when superstition answers all?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881552</id>
	<title>Re:The rise of ignorance...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264324260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's amazing how so many people who never passed a high school science class (or their schools 'science' class hadn't gone past basic atomic structure) are utterly afraid of crackpot doomsday predictions about something scientific that they don't even have the faintest inkling of comprehension</p></div><p>It's amazing how so many people who never passed a high school biology class believe a doctor when he says to take an antibiotic.<br>It's amazing how so many people who never passed a high school geology class believe the Earth is composed of large slowly moving plates.<br>It's amazing how so many people who never passed a high school astronomy class who believe the Sun is really eight light minutes away.</p><p>People believe the word of experts.  You have to, as there is simply no way one can study and be in a position of authority on every subject.  When it comes to the public that experts disagree (or at least someone posing as an authority), well it is only natural for people to assume the worst (Fox News style) unless something new comes along.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's amazing how so many people who never passed a high school science class ( or their schools 'science ' class had n't gone past basic atomic structure ) are utterly afraid of crackpot doomsday predictions about something scientific that they do n't even have the faintest inkling of comprehensionIt 's amazing how so many people who never passed a high school biology class believe a doctor when he says to take an antibiotic.It 's amazing how so many people who never passed a high school geology class believe the Earth is composed of large slowly moving plates.It 's amazing how so many people who never passed a high school astronomy class who believe the Sun is really eight light minutes away.People believe the word of experts .
You have to , as there is simply no way one can study and be in a position of authority on every subject .
When it comes to the public that experts disagree ( or at least someone posing as an authority ) , well it is only natural for people to assume the worst ( Fox News style ) unless something new comes along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's amazing how so many people who never passed a high school science class (or their schools 'science' class hadn't gone past basic atomic structure) are utterly afraid of crackpot doomsday predictions about something scientific that they don't even have the faintest inkling of comprehensionIt's amazing how so many people who never passed a high school biology class believe a doctor when he says to take an antibiotic.It's amazing how so many people who never passed a high school geology class believe the Earth is composed of large slowly moving plates.It's amazing how so many people who never passed a high school astronomy class who believe the Sun is really eight light minutes away.People believe the word of experts.
You have to, as there is simply no way one can study and be in a position of authority on every subject.
When it comes to the public that experts disagree (or at least someone posing as an authority), well it is only natural for people to assume the worst (Fox News style) unless something new comes along.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880058</id>
	<title>What's your definition of possible</title>
	<author>sweatyboatman</author>
	<datestamp>1264360080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A <i>quintillion</i> times higher than the LHC?</p><p>Might I suggest that we not use the word possible to mean "as likely as your car turning into a pig and flying away".</p><p>Thanks!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A quintillion times higher than the LHC ? Might I suggest that we not use the word possible to mean " as likely as your car turning into a pig and flying away " .Thanks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A quintillion times higher than the LHC?Might I suggest that we not use the word possible to mean "as likely as your car turning into a pig and flying away".Thanks!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881458</id>
	<title>Is a mini-black-hole always a mini-black-hole?</title>
	<author>budgenator</author>
	<datestamp>1264323660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Correct me if I'm wrong as I'm not a high energy particle physicist, a particle's energy/mass would only exists at it's maximum along it's axis of velocity, m = mrest/ sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and v is varied by the cosine of the angle of approach or the radial velocity therefore it is likely that a relativistic particle could have some collisions that would satisfied the conditions for a black-hole and some that did not simultaneously.  We generally view a blackhole event horizon as a psychologically comfortable sphere, yet a relativistic blackholes event horizon would be shaped like an hour-glass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Correct me if I 'm wrong as I 'm not a high energy particle physicist , a particle 's energy/mass would only exists at it 's maximum along it 's axis of velocity , m = mrest/ sqrt ( 1-v ^ 2/c ^ 2 ) and v is varied by the cosine of the angle of approach or the radial velocity therefore it is likely that a relativistic particle could have some collisions that would satisfied the conditions for a black-hole and some that did not simultaneously .
We generally view a blackhole event horizon as a psychologically comfortable sphere , yet a relativistic blackholes event horizon would be shaped like an hour-glass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correct me if I'm wrong as I'm not a high energy particle physicist, a particle's energy/mass would only exists at it's maximum along it's axis of velocity, m = mrest/ sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and v is varied by the cosine of the angle of approach or the radial velocity therefore it is likely that a relativistic particle could have some collisions that would satisfied the conditions for a black-hole and some that did not simultaneously.
We generally view a blackhole event horizon as a psychologically comfortable sphere, yet a relativistic blackholes event horizon would be shaped like an hour-glass.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880348</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>koan</author>
	<datestamp>1264361280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LOL you guys are brutal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL you guys are brutal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL you guys are brutal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881106</id>
	<title>Re:Ignorance, plain and simple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264365060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After all scientific theory is not really theory. It is scientific fact. And the problem that many theories over a period of time have proven false should not deter us from believing that this time we have it just right.</p><p>An yea, look at the perfect record of these people. After all no pigs were vaporized in being too close to an atom bomb explosion. And there have been no radiation deaths in the soldiers that were participating in the atom bomb experiments.</p><p>OH DAMN!!!!!! THERE WERE HUG MISTAKES. But thankfully that will never happen again. After all, this string theory has (OH DAMN, EVEN THE MATH CAN'T BE SHOWN TO BE RIGHT!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After all scientific theory is not really theory .
It is scientific fact .
And the problem that many theories over a period of time have proven false should not deter us from believing that this time we have it just right.An yea , look at the perfect record of these people .
After all no pigs were vaporized in being too close to an atom bomb explosion .
And there have been no radiation deaths in the soldiers that were participating in the atom bomb experiments.OH DAMN ! ! ! ! ! !
THERE WERE HUG MISTAKES .
But thankfully that will never happen again .
After all , this string theory has ( OH DAMN , EVEN THE MATH CA N'T BE SHOWN TO BE RIGHT ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all scientific theory is not really theory.
It is scientific fact.
And the problem that many theories over a period of time have proven false should not deter us from believing that this time we have it just right.An yea, look at the perfect record of these people.
After all no pigs were vaporized in being too close to an atom bomb explosion.
And there have been no radiation deaths in the soldiers that were participating in the atom bomb experiments.OH DAMN!!!!!!
THERE WERE HUG MISTAKES.
But thankfully that will never happen again.
After all, this string theory has (OH DAMN, EVEN THE MATH CAN'T BE SHOWN TO BE RIGHT!!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881256</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>mozumder</author>
	<datestamp>1264365840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The particles with this energy didn't pass through you, but some of the decay particles with far less energy might have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The particles with this energy did n't pass through you , but some of the decay particles with far less energy might have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The particles with this energy didn't pass through you, but some of the decay particles with far less energy might have.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880426</id>
	<title>Re:What's your definition of possible</title>
	<author>isny</author>
	<datestamp>1264361580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dude, where's my car?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude , where 's my car ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude, where's my car?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30882332</id>
	<title>Re:The rise of ignorance...</title>
	<author>Tsalg</author>
	<datestamp>1264328940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The nearest place where events with orders of magnitude more energy occur is just our atmosphere. Particles thousands of times more energetic, coming from yet undetermined sources in the Universe, strike the atmosphere (and the Moon, and the Sun, and all the other planets) all the time. Since the Earth is one of the smaller planets, it is more likely that such a theoretical black hole is created in, say, Jupiter or the Sun, than here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The nearest place where events with orders of magnitude more energy occur is just our atmosphere .
Particles thousands of times more energetic , coming from yet undetermined sources in the Universe , strike the atmosphere ( and the Moon , and the Sun , and all the other planets ) all the time .
Since the Earth is one of the smaller planets , it is more likely that such a theoretical black hole is created in , say , Jupiter or the Sun , than here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The nearest place where events with orders of magnitude more energy occur is just our atmosphere.
Particles thousands of times more energetic, coming from yet undetermined sources in the Universe, strike the atmosphere (and the Moon, and the Sun, and all the other planets) all the time.
Since the Earth is one of the smaller planets, it is more likely that such a theoretical black hole is created in, say, Jupiter or the Sun, than here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880260</id>
	<title>feh</title>
	<author>fireylord</author>
	<datestamp>1264360920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>easily possible with an Infinite Improbability Drive

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology\_in\_The\_Hitchhiker's\_Guide\_to\_the\_Galaxy#Infinite\_Improbability\_Drive" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology\_in\_The\_Hitchhiker's\_Guide\_to\_the\_Galaxy#Infinite\_Improbability\_Drive</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>easily possible with an Infinite Improbability Drive http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology \ _in \ _The \ _Hitchhiker 's \ _Guide \ _to \ _the \ _Galaxy # Infinite \ _Improbability \ _Drive [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>easily possible with an Infinite Improbability Drive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology\_in\_The\_Hitchhiker's\_Guide\_to\_the\_Galaxy#Infinite\_Improbability\_Drive [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30887464</id>
	<title>Re:few atom balck holes evaporate instantly</title>
	<author>Roger W Moore</author>
	<datestamp>1264413180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wouldnt be surprised if existing colliders and cosmic rays routinely make black holes.</p></div><p>
I would. Black Holes are easy to see. Once you get above the production threshold the cross-section becomes huge, in fact so huge that practically all you will see is Black Holes being produced and decaying.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wouldnt be surprised if existing colliders and cosmic rays routinely make black holes .
I would .
Black Holes are easy to see .
Once you get above the production threshold the cross-section becomes huge , in fact so huge that practically all you will see is Black Holes being produced and decaying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldnt be surprised if existing colliders and cosmic rays routinely make black holes.
I would.
Black Holes are easy to see.
Once you get above the production threshold the cross-section becomes huge, in fact so huge that practically all you will see is Black Holes being produced and decaying.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30882788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30887342</id>
	<title>Re:Large Hardon Collider could corrupt civilisatio</title>
	<author>Sulphur</author>
	<datestamp>1264411740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The HeadOn people called.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The HeadOn people called .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The HeadOn people called.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30882072</id>
	<title>Re:The rise of ignorance...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264327380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because they witnessed all the negative things science could introduce: from nuclear weapons to chemicals which turn out to be harmfulm although all the scientific data predicted otherwise.<br>Science is getting more and more effctive in creating increasingly "things", which are powerful enough to create global demage. Moreover, scientist turn out to be as fragile humans as people who never passed highschool when it comes to selling out their knowledge for money, fame, prestige. There is no reason why the public should not be sceptic and should not demand disclosure about any scientific issue, which may have a profound negative effect on society.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because they witnessed all the negative things science could introduce : from nuclear weapons to chemicals which turn out to be harmfulm although all the scientific data predicted otherwise.Science is getting more and more effctive in creating increasingly " things " , which are powerful enough to create global demage .
Moreover , scientist turn out to be as fragile humans as people who never passed highschool when it comes to selling out their knowledge for money , fame , prestige .
There is no reason why the public should not be sceptic and should not demand disclosure about any scientific issue , which may have a profound negative effect on society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because they witnessed all the negative things science could introduce: from nuclear weapons to chemicals which turn out to be harmfulm although all the scientific data predicted otherwise.Science is getting more and more effctive in creating increasingly "things", which are powerful enough to create global demage.
Moreover, scientist turn out to be as fragile humans as people who never passed highschool when it comes to selling out their knowledge for money, fame, prestige.
There is no reason why the public should not be sceptic and should not demand disclosure about any scientific issue, which may have a profound negative effect on society.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881012</id>
	<title>Re:What's your definition of possible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264364520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The year of the Linux desktop will come the same way the year of the Darwin desktop came, and maybe to the same general result.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The year of the Linux desktop will come the same way the year of the Darwin desktop came , and maybe to the same general result .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The year of the Linux desktop will come the same way the year of the Darwin desktop came, and maybe to the same general result.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880104</id>
	<title>Non-dangerous black holes.</title>
	<author>\_GNU\_</author>
	<datestamp>1264360260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Large Hadron Collider can definitely create microscopic black holes, the thing is that they are not dangerous as they would evaporate long before interacting with any matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Large Hadron Collider can definitely create microscopic black holes , the thing is that they are not dangerous as they would evaporate long before interacting with any matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Large Hadron Collider can definitely create microscopic black holes, the thing is that they are not dangerous as they would evaporate long before interacting with any matter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30888154</id>
	<title>Re:few atom balck holes evaporate instantly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264422060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>(3) Particles dont interact gravitationally in practice. Other atomic forces are 38 or more magnitudes larger. </i>

<p>Now this is a part I find interesting, and I don't think I've ever read a serious treatment of it. Collide two protons at CERN and create a black hole of mass (2*proton mass + collision energy), and charge +2e. You now have an extreme Reissner-Nordstrom black hole, whose electric charge predominates over its gravitational field. Are we looking at a naked singularity here?

</p><p>Or if not; even so, let the charged black hole interact with matter nearby. It approaches some atomic matter in the wall of the particle accelerator. The first thing it encounters is the electron cloud that forms the surface of the wall. Now, does it swallow electrons into its event horizon? Unlikely. Surely instead it will pull the electrons into orbit about itself, like any other particle? You'd get a black hole with two electrons orbiting it, it would look like a rather overweight helium atom. And that would be the end of it. So its nucleus has an event horizon, what of it? Nothing approaches the nucleus because it's shielded by the electrons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( 3 ) Particles dont interact gravitationally in practice .
Other atomic forces are 38 or more magnitudes larger .
Now this is a part I find interesting , and I do n't think I 've ever read a serious treatment of it .
Collide two protons at CERN and create a black hole of mass ( 2 * proton mass + collision energy ) , and charge + 2e .
You now have an extreme Reissner-Nordstrom black hole , whose electric charge predominates over its gravitational field .
Are we looking at a naked singularity here ?
Or if not ; even so , let the charged black hole interact with matter nearby .
It approaches some atomic matter in the wall of the particle accelerator .
The first thing it encounters is the electron cloud that forms the surface of the wall .
Now , does it swallow electrons into its event horizon ?
Unlikely. Surely instead it will pull the electrons into orbit about itself , like any other particle ?
You 'd get a black hole with two electrons orbiting it , it would look like a rather overweight helium atom .
And that would be the end of it .
So its nucleus has an event horizon , what of it ?
Nothing approaches the nucleus because it 's shielded by the electrons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(3) Particles dont interact gravitationally in practice.
Other atomic forces are 38 or more magnitudes larger.
Now this is a part I find interesting, and I don't think I've ever read a serious treatment of it.
Collide two protons at CERN and create a black hole of mass (2*proton mass + collision energy), and charge +2e.
You now have an extreme Reissner-Nordstrom black hole, whose electric charge predominates over its gravitational field.
Are we looking at a naked singularity here?
Or if not; even so, let the charged black hole interact with matter nearby.
It approaches some atomic matter in the wall of the particle accelerator.
The first thing it encounters is the electron cloud that forms the surface of the wall.
Now, does it swallow electrons into its event horizon?
Unlikely. Surely instead it will pull the electrons into orbit about itself, like any other particle?
You'd get a black hole with two electrons orbiting it, it would look like a rather overweight helium atom.
And that would be the end of it.
So its nucleus has an event horizon, what of it?
Nothing approaches the nucleus because it's shielded by the electrons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30882788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880926</id>
	<title>TO: Whom it may concern;</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264363920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a pornographic film maker and I have just registered a screen-play with the <a href="http://www.uspto.gov/" title="uspto.gov">USPTO</a> [uspto.gov] and the <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/" title="copyright.gov">US Copyright office</a> [copyright.gov] for a creative work titled "The Large hardon Collider"depicting two white nude male actors running around a ring for the purpose of jousting with their abnormally large, erect penises. When the actor collides his penis with the opposing actor he is assigned a point for the collision, the first actor to achieve 5 points wins the privilege of engaging in the sex scene with a black actress. Any talk or writings involving "large hardon collider" or "large hardon collisions" with or without blackholes is a serious violation of my IP rights. My legal team is at this moment is preparing litigation against the more grievous violater one "Anonymous Coward".</p><p>Seriously if newstechnica.com habitually misspells the word <a href="http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/" title="web.cern.ch"> hadron</a> [web.cern.ch], which is so fundemental to the topic of the article, how can anybody give them any credibility?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a pornographic film maker and I have just registered a screen-play with the USPTO [ uspto.gov ] and the US Copyright office [ copyright.gov ] for a creative work titled " The Large hardon Collider " depicting two white nude male actors running around a ring for the purpose of jousting with their abnormally large , erect penises .
When the actor collides his penis with the opposing actor he is assigned a point for the collision , the first actor to achieve 5 points wins the privilege of engaging in the sex scene with a black actress .
Any talk or writings involving " large hardon collider " or " large hardon collisions " with or without blackholes is a serious violation of my IP rights .
My legal team is at this moment is preparing litigation against the more grievous violater one " Anonymous Coward " .Seriously if newstechnica.com habitually misspells the word hadron [ web.cern.ch ] , which is so fundemental to the topic of the article , how can anybody give them any credibility ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a pornographic film maker and I have just registered a screen-play with the USPTO [uspto.gov] and the US Copyright office [copyright.gov] for a creative work titled "The Large hardon Collider"depicting two white nude male actors running around a ring for the purpose of jousting with their abnormally large, erect penises.
When the actor collides his penis with the opposing actor he is assigned a point for the collision, the first actor to achieve 5 points wins the privilege of engaging in the sex scene with a black actress.
Any talk or writings involving "large hardon collider" or "large hardon collisions" with or without blackholes is a serious violation of my IP rights.
My legal team is at this moment is preparing litigation against the more grievous violater one "Anonymous Coward".Seriously if newstechnica.com habitually misspells the word  hadron [web.cern.ch], which is so fundemental to the topic of the article, how can anybody give them any credibility?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30887426</id>
	<title>Re:Ignorance, plain and simple</title>
	<author>Roger W Moore</author>
	<datestamp>1264412580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is obvious even with a simplistic high-school level of understanding that any black holes formed by the LHC (if such a thing is even possible) are completely harmless.</p></div><p>
The reason that any Black Holes formed by the LHC are harmless is due to Hawking radiation which, since it requires understanding quantum mechanics, is not a result that is at all obviously to a secondary school student. It can be explained to someone with that level of knowledge but it is by no means obvious.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is obvious even with a simplistic high-school level of understanding that any black holes formed by the LHC ( if such a thing is even possible ) are completely harmless .
The reason that any Black Holes formed by the LHC are harmless is due to Hawking radiation which , since it requires understanding quantum mechanics , is not a result that is at all obviously to a secondary school student .
It can be explained to someone with that level of knowledge but it is by no means obvious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is obvious even with a simplistic high-school level of understanding that any black holes formed by the LHC (if such a thing is even possible) are completely harmless.
The reason that any Black Holes formed by the LHC are harmless is due to Hawking radiation which, since it requires understanding quantum mechanics, is not a result that is at all obviously to a secondary school student.
It can be explained to someone with that level of knowledge but it is by no means obvious.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30883382</id>
	<title>Re:Proved conclusively?</title>
	<author>Normal\_Deviate</author>
	<datestamp>1264335480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Computer model proved conclusively...."

  No further reading necessary.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Computer model proved conclusively.... " No further reading necessary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Computer model proved conclusively...."

  No further reading necessary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880276</id>
	<title>Re:Non-dangerous black holes.</title>
	<author>bromlad</author>
	<datestamp>1264360980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its funny, I would think you all would know theory never equals reality but I guess we will see if humans destroy the world in my life time or the next. Not like it matters anyway human history is nothing in the planetary scheme of things.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its funny , I would think you all would know theory never equals reality but I guess we will see if humans destroy the world in my life time or the next .
Not like it matters anyway human history is nothing in the planetary scheme of things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its funny, I would think you all would know theory never equals reality but I guess we will see if humans destroy the world in my life time or the next.
Not like it matters anyway human history is nothing in the planetary scheme of things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880930</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264363920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>a) a black hole created in a particle accelarator would evaporate too quickly to be dangerous</p></div><p>And even if it never evaporated, the speed at which it is going at would:<br>1) Throw it out the solar system entirely</p><p>2) throw it in to an orbit around Sol, doing no harm to anyone<br>3.1) fall to the center of Earth and be incapable of eating up any de<br>cent amounts of mass in the expected lifetime of the planet.  OR<br>3.2) By the time a blackhole could do any damage to Earth, you can bet your ass we would already have the knowledge and technology to solve the problem.</p><p>Blackholes aren't anything special, they are just compressed stars.  We know how it all works, all that matters at least.  (the outside influence)<br>Any of those scientists who actually tried to stop it are an embarrassment to the whole of science.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>a ) a black hole created in a particle accelarator would evaporate too quickly to be dangerousAnd even if it never evaporated , the speed at which it is going at would : 1 ) Throw it out the solar system entirely2 ) throw it in to an orbit around Sol , doing no harm to anyone3.1 ) fall to the center of Earth and be incapable of eating up any decent amounts of mass in the expected lifetime of the planet .
OR3.2 ) By the time a blackhole could do any damage to Earth , you can bet your ass we would already have the knowledge and technology to solve the problem.Blackholes are n't anything special , they are just compressed stars .
We know how it all works , all that matters at least .
( the outside influence ) Any of those scientists who actually tried to stop it are an embarrassment to the whole of science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a) a black hole created in a particle accelarator would evaporate too quickly to be dangerousAnd even if it never evaporated, the speed at which it is going at would:1) Throw it out the solar system entirely2) throw it in to an orbit around Sol, doing no harm to anyone3.1) fall to the center of Earth and be incapable of eating up any decent amounts of mass in the expected lifetime of the planet.
OR3.2) By the time a blackhole could do any damage to Earth, you can bet your ass we would already have the knowledge and technology to solve the problem.Blackholes aren't anything special, they are just compressed stars.
We know how it all works, all that matters at least.
(the outside influence)Any of those scientists who actually tried to stop it are an embarrassment to the whole of science.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881264</id>
	<title>Re:Ignorance, plain and simple</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1264365900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are forgetting two things, though:</p><p>1) The difference in kinetic energy before and after the collision. If the kinetic energy after the collision is lower, there must be more mass (recall that mass is energy) to compensate. Hence, you may end up with more particles than you started with.</p><p>2) Particles do not necessarily survive a collision. Therefore, you may end up with different particles than you started with. These may have resting masses lower than two proton masses if the kinetic energy is higher.</p><p>In short, should you create a black hole, it could have a mass of more than two proton masses, or less.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are forgetting two things , though : 1 ) The difference in kinetic energy before and after the collision .
If the kinetic energy after the collision is lower , there must be more mass ( recall that mass is energy ) to compensate .
Hence , you may end up with more particles than you started with.2 ) Particles do not necessarily survive a collision .
Therefore , you may end up with different particles than you started with .
These may have resting masses lower than two proton masses if the kinetic energy is higher.In short , should you create a black hole , it could have a mass of more than two proton masses , or less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are forgetting two things, though:1) The difference in kinetic energy before and after the collision.
If the kinetic energy after the collision is lower, there must be more mass (recall that mass is energy) to compensate.
Hence, you may end up with more particles than you started with.2) Particles do not necessarily survive a collision.
Therefore, you may end up with different particles than you started with.
These may have resting masses lower than two proton masses if the kinetic energy is higher.In short, should you create a black hole, it could have a mass of more than two proton masses, or less.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30885248</id>
	<title>what is simulation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264348020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>simulation only can be done by known knowledge<br>anything unknown is NOT simulated</p><p>so u r proving ur own facts with ur own theories<br>nothing factual</p><p>wOw</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>simulation only can be done by known knowledgeanything unknown is NOT simulatedso u r proving ur own facts with ur own theoriesnothing factualwOw</tokentext>
<sentencetext>simulation only can be done by known knowledgeanything unknown is NOT simulatedso u r proving ur own facts with ur own theoriesnothing factualwOw</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881652</id>
	<title>Re:Proved conclusively?</title>
	<author>cli\_rules!</author>
	<datestamp>1264324740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I mean, you can't get out more than you put in, can you?</p></div><p>Well, it worked for my wife.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , you ca n't get out more than you put in , can you ? Well , it worked for my wife .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, you can't get out more than you put in, can you?Well, it worked for my wife.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881588</id>
	<title>Re:What's your definition of possible</title>
	<author>failedlogic</author>
	<datestamp>1264324380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry, but this would be an inappropriate use of the word Bullshit. I am an avid reader of the most in-depth review of this word, On Bullshit by Harry Frankfurt. In his thorough review, he lists and explains various uses for the word Bullshit and he has not used it as a scientific unit of measurement.</p><p>Frankly, I think your post is bullshit as is the +5 Funny. I believe you would understand my level of frustration with your post if I inappropriately labeled it as 10^200 bullshits. If you care to reply, please bear in mind that based my dissatisfaction with your response I may need to increase the bullshits exponentially.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , but this would be an inappropriate use of the word Bullshit .
I am an avid reader of the most in-depth review of this word , On Bullshit by Harry Frankfurt .
In his thorough review , he lists and explains various uses for the word Bullshit and he has not used it as a scientific unit of measurement.Frankly , I think your post is bullshit as is the + 5 Funny .
I believe you would understand my level of frustration with your post if I inappropriately labeled it as 10 ^ 200 bullshits .
If you care to reply , please bear in mind that based my dissatisfaction with your response I may need to increase the bullshits exponentially .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, but this would be an inappropriate use of the word Bullshit.
I am an avid reader of the most in-depth review of this word, On Bullshit by Harry Frankfurt.
In his thorough review, he lists and explains various uses for the word Bullshit and he has not used it as a scientific unit of measurement.Frankly, I think your post is bullshit as is the +5 Funny.
I believe you would understand my level of frustration with your post if I inappropriately labeled it as 10^200 bullshits.
If you care to reply, please bear in mind that based my dissatisfaction with your response I may need to increase the bullshits exponentially.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30882122</id>
	<title>Re:The rise of ignorance...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264327620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's amazing how so many people who never passed a high school science class (or their schools 'science' class hadn't gone past basic atomic structure) are utterly afraid of crackpot doomsday predictions about something scientific that they don't even have the faintest inkling of comprehension of, while all the experts in that field aren't afraid or worried in the slightest.</p></div><p>Isn't it amazing how people who never sat in a single theology lesson are still afraid of eternal damnation, while the scholars usually have a different opinion on the matter... not surprising at all actually.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's amazing how so many people who never passed a high school science class ( or their schools 'science ' class had n't gone past basic atomic structure ) are utterly afraid of crackpot doomsday predictions about something scientific that they do n't even have the faintest inkling of comprehension of , while all the experts in that field are n't afraid or worried in the slightest.Is n't it amazing how people who never sat in a single theology lesson are still afraid of eternal damnation , while the scholars usually have a different opinion on the matter... not surprising at all actually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's amazing how so many people who never passed a high school science class (or their schools 'science' class hadn't gone past basic atomic structure) are utterly afraid of crackpot doomsday predictions about something scientific that they don't even have the faintest inkling of comprehension of, while all the experts in that field aren't afraid or worried in the slightest.Isn't it amazing how people who never sat in a single theology lesson are still afraid of eternal damnation, while the scholars usually have a different opinion on the matter... not surprising at all actually.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30885192</id>
	<title>Re:Is a mini-black-hole always a mini-black-hole?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264347600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you know, i never did the math for this (not that i ever knew the math for this), but a thought experiment i came up with in Jr. High or so was to have a ship with a very dense cargo fly next to a ship with an empty cargo hold, both planning to fly by a planet during their trip.  accelerate them up to a speed where the relativistic mass increase (with respect to the planet) coupled with the spatial contraction would push the density over the threshold for a gravitational collapse, as viewed by the planet, but not as viewed by the other ship flying right alongside.</p><p>i figure there has to be something i'm not accounting for to 'rescue' us from such a discrepancy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you know , i never did the math for this ( not that i ever knew the math for this ) , but a thought experiment i came up with in Jr. High or so was to have a ship with a very dense cargo fly next to a ship with an empty cargo hold , both planning to fly by a planet during their trip .
accelerate them up to a speed where the relativistic mass increase ( with respect to the planet ) coupled with the spatial contraction would push the density over the threshold for a gravitational collapse , as viewed by the planet , but not as viewed by the other ship flying right alongside.i figure there has to be something i 'm not accounting for to 'rescue ' us from such a discrepancy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you know, i never did the math for this (not that i ever knew the math for this), but a thought experiment i came up with in Jr. High or so was to have a ship with a very dense cargo fly next to a ship with an empty cargo hold, both planning to fly by a planet during their trip.
accelerate them up to a speed where the relativistic mass increase (with respect to the planet) coupled with the spatial contraction would push the density over the threshold for a gravitational collapse, as viewed by the planet, but not as viewed by the other ship flying right alongside.i figure there has to be something i'm not accounting for to 'rescue' us from such a discrepancy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881036</id>
	<title>Re:CREATING black holes isn't the issue...</title>
	<author>Urkki</author>
	<datestamp>1264364640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Quantum black holes are unstable.</p></div><p>Prove (in the scientific sense of "prove") that, and you'll become famous (possibly rich, too).</p><p>Because your proof would most likely have to involve unifying quantum mechanics and general relativity, or alternatively pretty novel physical experiment, results of which might be used by others to do the theoretical unification... In either case, fame and riches await!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quantum black holes are unstable.Prove ( in the scientific sense of " prove " ) that , and you 'll become famous ( possibly rich , too ) .Because your proof would most likely have to involve unifying quantum mechanics and general relativity , or alternatively pretty novel physical experiment , results of which might be used by others to do the theoretical unification... In either case , fame and riches await !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quantum black holes are unstable.Prove (in the scientific sense of "prove") that, and you'll become famous (possibly rich, too).Because your proof would most likely have to involve unifying quantum mechanics and general relativity, or alternatively pretty novel physical experiment, results of which might be used by others to do the theoretical unification... In either case, fame and riches await!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30879984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30884092</id>
	<title>Re:Self-contradictions</title>
	<author>not-my-real-name</author>
	<datestamp>1264339860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been taking some simulation/modeling classes and one thing that they have drummed into us is the following quote:</p><p>"All models are wrong.  Some models are useful."  -- George Box</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been taking some simulation/modeling classes and one thing that they have drummed into us is the following quote : " All models are wrong .
Some models are useful .
" -- George Box</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been taking some simulation/modeling classes and one thing that they have drummed into us is the following quote:"All models are wrong.
Some models are useful.
"  -- George Box
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30882308</id>
	<title>misleading title</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264328700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The title of the slashdot article, "Colliding Particles Can Make Black Holes After All," is misleading, although the summary is less misleading. There's no "after all." <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3381" title="arxiv.org">Here</a> [arxiv.org] is the earlier paper, by Giddings and Mangano, which concluded that the LHC would not cause the end of the world. <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1780" title="arxiv.org">Here</a> [arxiv.org] is the more recent paper, by Choptuik and Pretorius, referred to in the present slashdot summary.</p><p>
The "after all" makes it sound as though the Choptuik paper contradicts the Giddings paper. It doesn't. Giddings and Choptuik agree that if the number of spacetime dimensions, D, equals 4, then black holes will not be formed at LHC energies. They agree that at much higher energies, with D=4, black holes will be formed. Choptuik checked the latter statement more carefully than had previously been done, and confirmed what everyone expected.
</p><p>
The LHC black hole doomsday scenarios all require D&gt;4, and in addition they require a number of other implausible things to occur. The Choptuik calculation has little relevance to this discussion, because it just confirms something everyone was pretty sure was true anyway, without affecting the extreme unlikeliness of the long list of *other* things that would have to be true if you were to get an LHC black hole doomsday scenario.
</p><p>
I don't see anywhere in the Choptuik paper where they explicitly state that they're assuming D=4. But I think they must be, since, e.g., they refer to things like Petrov classification of spacetimes, which I think are specific to D=4.
</p><p>
By the way, a commonly quoted argument against the LHC black hole doomsday scenario is actually an oversimplification meant for consumption by nonscientists. The argument is that if such a thing was possible, it would actually already have happened to the earth because of cosmic-ray events. If you read the Giddings paper, there are some loopholes in this argument that they specifically identify. If the long list of implausible things actually all turn out to be true, then it is possible, in a certain specific example involving D=6 (see p. 28) that LHC collisions *would* destroy the earth after a lag of millions of years, while cosmic ray interactions would not. For that reason, they turn to arguments involving neutron stars and white dwarfs rather than planets. It turns out that this argument has no such loophole: even if the long list of implausible statements were all true, neutron stars and white dwarfs would already have been destroyed by cosmic rays. Since we observe that neutron stars and white dwarfs do exist, we conclude that the long list of implausible statements cannot be true. So I know it isn't as comforting to non-physicists as the argument based on the earth's present existence, but the argument based on neutron stars' and white dwarfs' existence is actually secure.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The title of the slashdot article , " Colliding Particles Can Make Black Holes After All , " is misleading , although the summary is less misleading .
There 's no " after all .
" Here [ arxiv.org ] is the earlier paper , by Giddings and Mangano , which concluded that the LHC would not cause the end of the world .
Here [ arxiv.org ] is the more recent paper , by Choptuik and Pretorius , referred to in the present slashdot summary .
The " after all " makes it sound as though the Choptuik paper contradicts the Giddings paper .
It does n't .
Giddings and Choptuik agree that if the number of spacetime dimensions , D , equals 4 , then black holes will not be formed at LHC energies .
They agree that at much higher energies , with D = 4 , black holes will be formed .
Choptuik checked the latter statement more carefully than had previously been done , and confirmed what everyone expected .
The LHC black hole doomsday scenarios all require D &gt; 4 , and in addition they require a number of other implausible things to occur .
The Choptuik calculation has little relevance to this discussion , because it just confirms something everyone was pretty sure was true anyway , without affecting the extreme unlikeliness of the long list of * other * things that would have to be true if you were to get an LHC black hole doomsday scenario .
I do n't see anywhere in the Choptuik paper where they explicitly state that they 're assuming D = 4 .
But I think they must be , since , e.g. , they refer to things like Petrov classification of spacetimes , which I think are specific to D = 4 .
By the way , a commonly quoted argument against the LHC black hole doomsday scenario is actually an oversimplification meant for consumption by nonscientists .
The argument is that if such a thing was possible , it would actually already have happened to the earth because of cosmic-ray events .
If you read the Giddings paper , there are some loopholes in this argument that they specifically identify .
If the long list of implausible things actually all turn out to be true , then it is possible , in a certain specific example involving D = 6 ( see p. 28 ) that LHC collisions * would * destroy the earth after a lag of millions of years , while cosmic ray interactions would not .
For that reason , they turn to arguments involving neutron stars and white dwarfs rather than planets .
It turns out that this argument has no such loophole : even if the long list of implausible statements were all true , neutron stars and white dwarfs would already have been destroyed by cosmic rays .
Since we observe that neutron stars and white dwarfs do exist , we conclude that the long list of implausible statements can not be true .
So I know it is n't as comforting to non-physicists as the argument based on the earth 's present existence , but the argument based on neutron stars ' and white dwarfs ' existence is actually secure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The title of the slashdot article, "Colliding Particles Can Make Black Holes After All," is misleading, although the summary is less misleading.
There's no "after all.
" Here [arxiv.org] is the earlier paper, by Giddings and Mangano, which concluded that the LHC would not cause the end of the world.
Here [arxiv.org] is the more recent paper, by Choptuik and Pretorius, referred to in the present slashdot summary.
The "after all" makes it sound as though the Choptuik paper contradicts the Giddings paper.
It doesn't.
Giddings and Choptuik agree that if the number of spacetime dimensions, D, equals 4, then black holes will not be formed at LHC energies.
They agree that at much higher energies, with D=4, black holes will be formed.
Choptuik checked the latter statement more carefully than had previously been done, and confirmed what everyone expected.
The LHC black hole doomsday scenarios all require D&gt;4, and in addition they require a number of other implausible things to occur.
The Choptuik calculation has little relevance to this discussion, because it just confirms something everyone was pretty sure was true anyway, without affecting the extreme unlikeliness of the long list of *other* things that would have to be true if you were to get an LHC black hole doomsday scenario.
I don't see anywhere in the Choptuik paper where they explicitly state that they're assuming D=4.
But I think they must be, since, e.g., they refer to things like Petrov classification of spacetimes, which I think are specific to D=4.
By the way, a commonly quoted argument against the LHC black hole doomsday scenario is actually an oversimplification meant for consumption by nonscientists.
The argument is that if such a thing was possible, it would actually already have happened to the earth because of cosmic-ray events.
If you read the Giddings paper, there are some loopholes in this argument that they specifically identify.
If the long list of implausible things actually all turn out to be true, then it is possible, in a certain specific example involving D=6 (see p. 28) that LHC collisions *would* destroy the earth after a lag of millions of years, while cosmic ray interactions would not.
For that reason, they turn to arguments involving neutron stars and white dwarfs rather than planets.
It turns out that this argument has no such loophole: even if the long list of implausible statements were all true, neutron stars and white dwarfs would already have been destroyed by cosmic rays.
Since we observe that neutron stars and white dwarfs do exist, we conclude that the long list of implausible statements cannot be true.
So I know it isn't as comforting to non-physicists as the argument based on the earth's present existence, but the argument based on neutron stars' and white dwarfs' existence is actually secure.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880322</id>
	<title>Please remember</title>
	<author>diewlasing</author>
	<datestamp>1264361160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While this very well could be true, I'd just like to point out that a computer simulation is no substitute for an actual experiment.</p><p>  Also, while I'm no expert in the subject of string theory, if one could reach the Plank energy, wouldn't it then be possible to find these supposed strings about which everyone's been talking?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While this very well could be true , I 'd just like to point out that a computer simulation is no substitute for an actual experiment .
Also , while I 'm no expert in the subject of string theory , if one could reach the Plank energy , would n't it then be possible to find these supposed strings about which everyone 's been talking ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While this very well could be true, I'd just like to point out that a computer simulation is no substitute for an actual experiment.
Also, while I'm no expert in the subject of string theory, if one could reach the Plank energy, wouldn't it then be possible to find these supposed strings about which everyone's been talking?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30887340</id>
	<title>how about all those neutron "stars"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264411740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not this nonsense again.  Before we start to talk about black holes.  Let's make sure someone knows something about gravitational forces.  As an example, neutron stars could easily kill us all if one existed here somewhere near.  However, don't forget that a single neutron is technically the same as a very small neutron star.  We have lots of them around without the LHC.  No one seems to be have been swallowed.  Get it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not this nonsense again .
Before we start to talk about black holes .
Let 's make sure someone knows something about gravitational forces .
As an example , neutron stars could easily kill us all if one existed here somewhere near .
However , do n't forget that a single neutron is technically the same as a very small neutron star .
We have lots of them around without the LHC .
No one seems to be have been swallowed .
Get it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not this nonsense again.
Before we start to talk about black holes.
Let's make sure someone knows something about gravitational forces.
As an example, neutron stars could easily kill us all if one existed here somewhere near.
However, don't forget that a single neutron is technically the same as a very small neutron star.
We have lots of them around without the LHC.
No one seems to be have been swallowed.
Get it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30884762</id>
	<title>Re:Is a mini-black-hole always a mini-black-hole?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264344780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>well... more like like an elipse which, considering the scales, will more likely look like a line!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>well... more like like an elipse which , considering the scales , will more likely look like a line !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well... more like like an elipse which, considering the scales, will more likely look like a line!
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30882874</id>
	<title>Not only am I 100\% for the LHC...</title>
	<author>Dr. Spork</author>
	<datestamp>1264331880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...but if someone proposed a collider that would produce energies "a quintillion times higher than the LHC's maximum," I'd <i>still</i> be for it. Those collisions would be freakin awesome!</htmltext>
<tokenext>...but if someone proposed a collider that would produce energies " a quintillion times higher than the LHC 's maximum , " I 'd still be for it .
Those collisions would be freakin awesome !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but if someone proposed a collider that would produce energies "a quintillion times higher than the LHC's maximum," I'd still be for it.
Those collisions would be freakin awesome!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880976</id>
	<title>Walking the Planck</title>
	<author>xactuary</author>
	<datestamp>1264364280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>" the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) near Geneva, Switzerland, might create tiny black holes"<br> <br>

Meanwhile, I hear they're planning a Very Tiny Hadron Collider that may create very large black holes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" the Large Hadron Collider ( LHC ) near Geneva , Switzerland , might create tiny black holes " Meanwhile , I hear they 're planning a Very Tiny Hadron Collider that may create very large black holes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) near Geneva, Switzerland, might create tiny black holes" 

Meanwhile, I hear they're planning a Very Tiny Hadron Collider that may create very large black holes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30883054</id>
	<title>So we understand quantum gravity now?</title>
	<author>purplie</author>
	<datestamp>1264333200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is it really possible to make a prediction on black holes of this size, without a theory of quantum gravity?  I'm no physicist, but I keep reading that the current theory of relativity is not usable at the quantum scale.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it really possible to make a prediction on black holes of this size , without a theory of quantum gravity ?
I 'm no physicist , but I keep reading that the current theory of relativity is not usable at the quantum scale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it really possible to make a prediction on black holes of this size, without a theory of quantum gravity?
I'm no physicist, but I keep reading that the current theory of relativity is not usable at the quantum scale.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881860</id>
	<title>Re:The rise of ignorance...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264325880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Of course those scientist don't say it's impossible, though my understanding is that it's probability of destroying the earth is a bit less than that of a winged monkey to fly out your ass leading a miniature brass band.</p></div></blockquote><p>Holy Shit! There's a chance of that happening!? I'd better schedule a visit to my proctologist.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course those scientist do n't say it 's impossible , though my understanding is that it 's probability of destroying the earth is a bit less than that of a winged monkey to fly out your ass leading a miniature brass band.Holy Shit !
There 's a chance of that happening ! ?
I 'd better schedule a visit to my proctologist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course those scientist don't say it's impossible, though my understanding is that it's probability of destroying the earth is a bit less than that of a winged monkey to fly out your ass leading a miniature brass band.Holy Shit!
There's a chance of that happening!?
I'd better schedule a visit to my proctologist.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30886674</id>
	<title>insurance</title>
	<author>jdc18</author>
	<datestamp>1264361460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Get your black hole insurance policy now</htmltext>
<tokenext>Get your black hole insurance policy now</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get your black hole insurance policy now</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30889598</id>
	<title>Re:The rise of ignorance...</title>
	<author>Jason Levine</author>
	<datestamp>1264433460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Should the Sun suddenly become a black hole, we won't get sucked in as most lay people think.</i></p><p>I think "sucked in" is the big problem with how lay people view black holes.  They think of them as cosmic vacuum cleaners actively sucking things into them never to be seen again.  When they hear "LHC could create a microscopic black hole" they think the microscopic black hole will form, turn it's "vacuum cleaner" on and start sucking up everything on Earth.</p><p>They don't understand that they are just "ordinary" cosmic objects, albeit with a point of no return (the event horizon).  A microscopic black hole might pull a tiny bit of matter in (through ordinary gravity), but there's a lot of room between particles and particles don't have much mass by themselves.  Even if the black hole didn't evaporate (which lay people don't know they can do), it would likely be pulled to the center of the Earth virtually unnoticed.  Once there, it wouldn't gobble up the Earth in years, decades or even centuries.  It would just sit there with all the other particles, occasionally pulling one in when they collided (or got too close) by chance.  I haven't done the calculations, but I'm guessing we'd have more to fear from the Sun going supernova in a few billion years than from a microscopic (non-evaporating) black hole in the Earth's core.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should the Sun suddenly become a black hole , we wo n't get sucked in as most lay people think.I think " sucked in " is the big problem with how lay people view black holes .
They think of them as cosmic vacuum cleaners actively sucking things into them never to be seen again .
When they hear " LHC could create a microscopic black hole " they think the microscopic black hole will form , turn it 's " vacuum cleaner " on and start sucking up everything on Earth.They do n't understand that they are just " ordinary " cosmic objects , albeit with a point of no return ( the event horizon ) .
A microscopic black hole might pull a tiny bit of matter in ( through ordinary gravity ) , but there 's a lot of room between particles and particles do n't have much mass by themselves .
Even if the black hole did n't evaporate ( which lay people do n't know they can do ) , it would likely be pulled to the center of the Earth virtually unnoticed .
Once there , it would n't gobble up the Earth in years , decades or even centuries .
It would just sit there with all the other particles , occasionally pulling one in when they collided ( or got too close ) by chance .
I have n't done the calculations , but I 'm guessing we 'd have more to fear from the Sun going supernova in a few billion years than from a microscopic ( non-evaporating ) black hole in the Earth 's core .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should the Sun suddenly become a black hole, we won't get sucked in as most lay people think.I think "sucked in" is the big problem with how lay people view black holes.
They think of them as cosmic vacuum cleaners actively sucking things into them never to be seen again.
When they hear "LHC could create a microscopic black hole" they think the microscopic black hole will form, turn it's "vacuum cleaner" on and start sucking up everything on Earth.They don't understand that they are just "ordinary" cosmic objects, albeit with a point of no return (the event horizon).
A microscopic black hole might pull a tiny bit of matter in (through ordinary gravity), but there's a lot of room between particles and particles don't have much mass by themselves.
Even if the black hole didn't evaporate (which lay people don't know they can do), it would likely be pulled to the center of the Earth virtually unnoticed.
Once there, it wouldn't gobble up the Earth in years, decades or even centuries.
It would just sit there with all the other particles, occasionally pulling one in when they collided (or got too close) by chance.
I haven't done the calculations, but I'm guessing we'd have more to fear from the Sun going supernova in a few billion years than from a microscopic (non-evaporating) black hole in the Earth's core.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30883498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30885950</id>
	<title>Obligatory: LHC Webcam Page</title>
	<author>Ringthane</author>
	<datestamp>1264354080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.cyriak.co.uk/lhc/lhc-webcams.html" title="cyriak.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.cyriak.co.uk/lhc/lhc-webcams.html</a> [cyriak.co.uk]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.cyriak.co.uk/lhc/lhc-webcams.html [ cyriak.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.cyriak.co.uk/lhc/lhc-webcams.html [cyriak.co.uk]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881226</id>
	<title>Re:Proved conclusively?</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1264365720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; How can you discover* completely new physics when the computer can only<br>&gt; start with a potentially incorrect/inaccurate theory and make deterministic<br>&gt; calculations based on that input?</p><p>What "completely new physics"?  This is a prediction of the standard model.  The calculations had been done before but only by making some pretty large assumptions in order to simplify the math.  These guys worked it out much more rigorously and showed that the prediction still stands.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; How can you discover * completely new physics when the computer can only &gt; start with a potentially incorrect/inaccurate theory and make deterministic &gt; calculations based on that input ? What " completely new physics " ?
This is a prediction of the standard model .
The calculations had been done before but only by making some pretty large assumptions in order to simplify the math .
These guys worked it out much more rigorously and showed that the prediction still stands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; How can you discover* completely new physics when the computer can only&gt; start with a potentially incorrect/inaccurate theory and make deterministic&gt; calculations based on that input?What "completely new physics"?
This is a prediction of the standard model.
The calculations had been done before but only by making some pretty large assumptions in order to simplify the math.
These guys worked it out much more rigorously and showed that the prediction still stands.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880914</id>
	<title>Re:What's your definition of possible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264363860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NOT A MEASURE OF PROBABILITY.<br>It was a measure of the energy required to do it!</p><p>Learn to read!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NOT A MEASURE OF PROBABILITY.It was a measure of the energy required to do it ! Learn to read !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NOT A MEASURE OF PROBABILITY.It was a measure of the energy required to do it!Learn to read!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30883114</id>
	<title>Stick to the facts</title>
	<author>heidaro</author>
	<datestamp>1264333740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I listened to the UK's representative at the LHC project speak at a local society last winter. She explained this in detail and said it was laughable how the Sun newspaper talked about these things without knowing anything. The energy of the colliding particles is about the same as two mosquito flies colliding with each other at around 15ms1.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I listened to the UK 's representative at the LHC project speak at a local society last winter .
She explained this in detail and said it was laughable how the Sun newspaper talked about these things without knowing anything .
The energy of the colliding particles is about the same as two mosquito flies colliding with each other at around 15ms1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I listened to the UK's representative at the LHC project speak at a local society last winter.
She explained this in detail and said it was laughable how the Sun newspaper talked about these things without knowing anything.
The energy of the colliding particles is about the same as two mosquito flies colliding with each other at around 15ms1.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30884892</id>
	<title>Re:Proved conclusively?</title>
	<author>KnowledgeKeeper</author>
	<datestamp>1264345440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't see how you can prove something conclusively in silico, you put in what you know and you get a distillation of it out. How can you discover* completely new physics when the computer can only start with a potentially incorrect/inaccurate theory and make deterministic calculations based on that input? I mean, you can't get out more than you put in, can you?</p></div><p>

Actually, yes, you can get out more than you put in. <a href="http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/04/newtonai/" title="wired.com" rel="nofollow">These guys </a> [wired.com] made the machine extrapolate laws of physics without any knowledge of physics or geometry.<br> <br>

They used a genetic algorithm to explain the measurements of a pendulum sways, and in the process the computer "invented"/"learned about" things like adding, substracting, multiplying, dividing, some algebra, conservation of momentum and Newton's second law.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see how you can prove something conclusively in silico , you put in what you know and you get a distillation of it out .
How can you discover * completely new physics when the computer can only start with a potentially incorrect/inaccurate theory and make deterministic calculations based on that input ?
I mean , you ca n't get out more than you put in , can you ?
Actually , yes , you can get out more than you put in .
These guys [ wired.com ] made the machine extrapolate laws of physics without any knowledge of physics or geometry .
They used a genetic algorithm to explain the measurements of a pendulum sways , and in the process the computer " invented " / " learned about " things like adding , substracting , multiplying , dividing , some algebra , conservation of momentum and Newton 's second law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see how you can prove something conclusively in silico, you put in what you know and you get a distillation of it out.
How can you discover* completely new physics when the computer can only start with a potentially incorrect/inaccurate theory and make deterministic calculations based on that input?
I mean, you can't get out more than you put in, can you?
Actually, yes, you can get out more than you put in.
These guys  [wired.com] made the machine extrapolate laws of physics without any knowledge of physics or geometry.
They used a genetic algorithm to explain the measurements of a pendulum sways, and in the process the computer "invented"/"learned about" things like adding, substracting, multiplying, dividing, some algebra, conservation of momentum and Newton's second law.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880432</id>
	<title>gazillion?</title>
	<author>flyingfsck</author>
	<datestamp>1264361640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder whether a quintillion is bigger or smaller than a gazillion?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder whether a quintillion is bigger or smaller than a gazillion ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder whether a quintillion is bigger or smaller than a gazillion?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30889400</id>
	<title>Just Keep Checking This Site</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1264432680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/" title="hasthelarg...rldyet.com">http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/</a> [hasthelarg...rldyet.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/ [ hasthelarg...rldyet.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/ [hasthelarg...rldyet.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880694</id>
	<title>Re:The rise of ignorance...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264362840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think I've seen one of those winged monkeys (with a miniature brass band)...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think I 've seen one of those winged monkeys ( with a miniature brass band ) .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think I've seen one of those winged monkeys (with a miniature brass band)...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30885918</id>
	<title>Re:The rise of ignorance...</title>
	<author>nomad2025</author>
	<datestamp>1264353840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hasthelhcdestroyedtheearth.com/" title="hasthelhcd...eearth.com" rel="nofollow">http://hasthelhcdestroyedtheearth.com/</a> [hasthelhcd...eearth.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //hasthelhcdestroyedtheearth.com/ [ hasthelhcd...eearth.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://hasthelhcdestroyedtheearth.com/ [hasthelhcd...eearth.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881418</id>
	<title>Re:What's your definition of possible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264366620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It *was* right there...but then you had to go and observe it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It * was * right there...but then you had to go and observe it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It *was* right there...but then you had to go and observe it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30883096</id>
	<title>Re:The rise of ignorance...</title>
	<author>iris-n</author>
	<datestamp>1264333560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There are an uncountable number of energy events...</p></div><p>Uncountable? Err... I would think that they are finite. It depends a lot on how you define event, but IMHO it is not possible to get worse than countable infinity.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are an uncountable number of energy events...Uncountable ?
Err... I would think that they are finite .
It depends a lot on how you define event , but IMHO it is not possible to get worse than countable infinity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are an uncountable number of energy events...Uncountable?
Err... I would think that they are finite.
It depends a lot on how you define event, but IMHO it is not possible to get worse than countable infinity.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30882208</id>
	<title>Re:Ignorance, plain and simple</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1264328100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The Luddites that believe the LHC is going to destroy the Earth are really starting to get on my nerves. It is obvious even with a simplistic high-school level of understanding that any black holes formed by the LHC (if such a thing is even possible) are completely harmless.</p></div></blockquote><p>First off, let me state clearly, I have no belief that they are going to create a earth swallowing black hole.</p><p>However<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...  There is absolutely 0 proof that it will go either way.  The high school physics you speak of regarding this are discussions about THEORY.  Do you know what a theory is?  It means we think this is the way it works but we really don't know.</p><p>You can spew shit out of your mouth about whats going to happen all day long, but if anyone knew for sure what was going to happen they wouldn't have built it.</p><p>You're title is correct, both you and the 'luddites' you speak of are ignorant.  Even capturing a few electrons orbiting around a microscopic black hole can have catastrphoric effects long term.  Too many people have this retarded idea that the universe is made of discrete components that can be screwed with without effecting the rest of it.  Part of that statement is true, the universe is made of discrete components, but they are all interconnected and every change eventually effects everything else in some way.</p><p>Again, I don't think anything is going to happen at the LHC, but you are retarded for making presumptions like you are.  Its just another example of humans thinking they are far more intelligent and important in the universe than they actually are.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Luddites that believe the LHC is going to destroy the Earth are really starting to get on my nerves .
It is obvious even with a simplistic high-school level of understanding that any black holes formed by the LHC ( if such a thing is even possible ) are completely harmless.First off , let me state clearly , I have no belief that they are going to create a earth swallowing black hole.However ... There is absolutely 0 proof that it will go either way .
The high school physics you speak of regarding this are discussions about THEORY .
Do you know what a theory is ?
It means we think this is the way it works but we really do n't know.You can spew shit out of your mouth about whats going to happen all day long , but if anyone knew for sure what was going to happen they would n't have built it.You 're title is correct , both you and the 'luddites ' you speak of are ignorant .
Even capturing a few electrons orbiting around a microscopic black hole can have catastrphoric effects long term .
Too many people have this retarded idea that the universe is made of discrete components that can be screwed with without effecting the rest of it .
Part of that statement is true , the universe is made of discrete components , but they are all interconnected and every change eventually effects everything else in some way.Again , I do n't think anything is going to happen at the LHC , but you are retarded for making presumptions like you are .
Its just another example of humans thinking they are far more intelligent and important in the universe than they actually are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Luddites that believe the LHC is going to destroy the Earth are really starting to get on my nerves.
It is obvious even with a simplistic high-school level of understanding that any black holes formed by the LHC (if such a thing is even possible) are completely harmless.First off, let me state clearly, I have no belief that they are going to create a earth swallowing black hole.However ...  There is absolutely 0 proof that it will go either way.
The high school physics you speak of regarding this are discussions about THEORY.
Do you know what a theory is?
It means we think this is the way it works but we really don't know.You can spew shit out of your mouth about whats going to happen all day long, but if anyone knew for sure what was going to happen they wouldn't have built it.You're title is correct, both you and the 'luddites' you speak of are ignorant.
Even capturing a few electrons orbiting around a microscopic black hole can have catastrphoric effects long term.
Too many people have this retarded idea that the universe is made of discrete components that can be screwed with without effecting the rest of it.
Part of that statement is true, the universe is made of discrete components, but they are all interconnected and every change eventually effects everything else in some way.Again, I don't think anything is going to happen at the LHC, but you are retarded for making presumptions like you are.
Its just another example of humans thinking they are far more intelligent and important in the universe than they actually are.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30884232</id>
	<title>Re:Non-dangerous black holes.</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1264340940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; The Large Hadron Collider can definitely create microscopic black holes...</p><p>I don't think that it has been established that it can.  This result establishes that particle collisions can create black holes but the energies required could still be out of the reach of the LHC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The Large Hadron Collider can definitely create microscopic black holes...I do n't think that it has been established that it can .
This result establishes that particle collisions can create black holes but the energies required could still be out of the reach of the LHC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; The Large Hadron Collider can definitely create microscopic black holes...I don't think that it has been established that it can.
This result establishes that particle collisions can create black holes but the energies required could still be out of the reach of the LHC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881252</id>
	<title>This topic again?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264365840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems that nothing quite draws in the crowds like a black hole!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems that nothing quite draws in the crowds like a black hole !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems that nothing quite draws in the crowds like a black hole!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30885026</id>
	<title>Re:Is a mini-black-hole always a mini-black-hole?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264346520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nope<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p><p>Mass increases for all observers (with the same relative speed); perhaps you're getting mixed by the fact that length contraction only happens along the axis of motion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope : PMass increases for all observers ( with the same relative speed ) ; perhaps you 're getting mixed by the fact that length contraction only happens along the axis of motion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope :PMass increases for all observers (with the same relative speed); perhaps you're getting mixed by the fact that length contraction only happens along the axis of motion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30883908</id>
	<title>Re:The rise of ignorance...</title>
	<author>Planesdragon</author>
	<datestamp>1264338660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's just not going to be a threat. If something that like that could be created by these cosmically insignificant energy levels and actually survive long enough to eat planets, the universe would already be pretty darn empty</p></div><p>You, ah, DO realize that a planet is "cosmically insignificant", right?  And we don't even need a complete anihilation of earth to no longer be able to live here.</p><p>The LHC throws two particles at each other at very close (on an absolute scale) to the speed of light. While parcticles wiz by at just this speed all the time, they (1) don't tend to hit each other head on, and (2) usually don't collide near a planet.</p><p>Your argument against it is as invalid as the threat.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's just not going to be a threat .
If something that like that could be created by these cosmically insignificant energy levels and actually survive long enough to eat planets , the universe would already be pretty darn emptyYou , ah , DO realize that a planet is " cosmically insignificant " , right ?
And we do n't even need a complete anihilation of earth to no longer be able to live here.The LHC throws two particles at each other at very close ( on an absolute scale ) to the speed of light .
While parcticles wiz by at just this speed all the time , they ( 1 ) do n't tend to hit each other head on , and ( 2 ) usually do n't collide near a planet.Your argument against it is as invalid as the threat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's just not going to be a threat.
If something that like that could be created by these cosmically insignificant energy levels and actually survive long enough to eat planets, the universe would already be pretty darn emptyYou, ah, DO realize that a planet is "cosmically insignificant", right?
And we don't even need a complete anihilation of earth to no longer be able to live here.The LHC throws two particles at each other at very close (on an absolute scale) to the speed of light.
While parcticles wiz by at just this speed all the time, they (1) don't tend to hit each other head on, and (2) usually don't collide near a planet.Your argument against it is as invalid as the threat.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30886280</id>
	<title>Re:gazillion?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264357020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Irregardless, they are both smaller than a brazillion</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Irregardless , they are both smaller than a brazillion</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Irregardless, they are both smaller than a brazillion</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880998</id>
	<title>Re:Ignorance, plain and simple</title>
	<author>Sollord</author>
	<datestamp>1264364400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yea tell that to the innocent and unsuspecting electron. What did it ever do to you!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea tell that to the innocent and unsuspecting electron .
What did it ever do to you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea tell that to the innocent and unsuspecting electron.
What did it ever do to you!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880110</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>jandoedel</author>
	<datestamp>1264360260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a) a black hole created in a particle accelarator would evaporate too quickly to be dangerous<br>b) the energies that LHC is producing are a LOT smaller than the energies that a lot of cosmic rays have when they hit earth. it's a lot of energy for man, but not for nature, actually quite common. While you were reading this comment, a couple of particles with this energy PASSED THROUGHT YOU</p><p>c) don't panic</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a ) a black hole created in a particle accelarator would evaporate too quickly to be dangerousb ) the energies that LHC is producing are a LOT smaller than the energies that a lot of cosmic rays have when they hit earth .
it 's a lot of energy for man , but not for nature , actually quite common .
While you were reading this comment , a couple of particles with this energy PASSED THROUGHT YOUc ) do n't panic</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a) a black hole created in a particle accelarator would evaporate too quickly to be dangerousb) the energies that LHC is producing are a LOT smaller than the energies that a lot of cosmic rays have when they hit earth.
it's a lot of energy for man, but not for nature, actually quite common.
While you were reading this comment, a couple of particles with this energy PASSED THROUGHT YOUc) don't panic</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30883266</id>
	<title>Re:Non-dangerous black holes.</title>
	<author>dimeglio</author>
	<datestamp>1264334760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Until we can explain this "planetary scheme of things" I resent your statement that we do not matter. I believe, the universe created us so we can help make sense of itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Until we can explain this " planetary scheme of things " I resent your statement that we do not matter .
I believe , the universe created us so we can help make sense of itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until we can explain this "planetary scheme of things" I resent your statement that we do not matter.
I believe, the universe created us so we can help make sense of itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30883192</id>
	<title>Re:What's your definition of possible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264334280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bullshit just doesn't translate very well.</p><p>Maybe just "bull" is better, i.e. picobull  kilobulls  petabulls...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bullshit just does n't translate very well.Maybe just " bull " is better , i.e .
picobull kilobulls petabulls.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bullshit just doesn't translate very well.Maybe just "bull" is better, i.e.
picobull  kilobulls  petabulls...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881822</id>
	<title>Re:TO: Whom it may concern;</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264325700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Woooosh.</p><p>And sadly we see mod abuse yet again, for the GP post - writing about the LHC on an LHC article, even for parody, is not off-topic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Woooosh.And sadly we see mod abuse yet again , for the GP post - writing about the LHC on an LHC article , even for parody , is not off-topic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Woooosh.And sadly we see mod abuse yet again, for the GP post - writing about the LHC on an LHC article, even for parody, is not off-topic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30886322</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>cinderblock</author>
	<datestamp>1264357440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>c) don't panic</p></div><p>d) bring a towel</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>c ) do n't panicd ) bring a towel</tokentext>
<sentencetext>c) don't panicd) bring a towel
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30882788</id>
	<title>few atom balck holes evaporate instantly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264331220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There a several of major problems with nano-black holes constructed from a few atoms:
<br>
(1) First is lifetime would be shorter than time it would take to interact with anything else.
<br>
(2) Its event horizon would be so small as to keep from interacting with most matter before it evaporated.
<br>
(3) Particles dont interact gravitationally in practice.  Other atomic forces are 38 or more magnitudes larger.
<br> <br>
I wouldnt be surprised if existing colliders and cosmic rays routinely make black holes.  We just dont see these very tiny ones.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There a several of major problems with nano-black holes constructed from a few atoms : ( 1 ) First is lifetime would be shorter than time it would take to interact with anything else .
( 2 ) Its event horizon would be so small as to keep from interacting with most matter before it evaporated .
( 3 ) Particles dont interact gravitationally in practice .
Other atomic forces are 38 or more magnitudes larger .
I wouldnt be surprised if existing colliders and cosmic rays routinely make black holes .
We just dont see these very tiny ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There a several of major problems with nano-black holes constructed from a few atoms:

(1) First is lifetime would be shorter than time it would take to interact with anything else.
(2) Its event horizon would be so small as to keep from interacting with most matter before it evaporated.
(3) Particles dont interact gravitationally in practice.
Other atomic forces are 38 or more magnitudes larger.
I wouldnt be surprised if existing colliders and cosmic rays routinely make black holes.
We just dont see these very tiny ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880114</id>
	<title>Re:This sound like the begining of a bad...</title>
	<author>ILuvRamen</author>
	<datestamp>1264360260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ooh I saw that one! lol.  No seriously, the Sci Fi channel made it.  And I believe the cliche, cookie cutter military general tried to nuke it and when that didn't work, they used some sort of umm...let's just say magic to dissipate it cuz it was at least equally idiotic.  Oh and if I'm not mistaken, the black hole contained some sort of extra terrestrial ghosts that started harrassing townspeople and destroying stuff.  I wish I was making that up but seriously, that was an actual movie.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ooh I saw that one !
lol. No seriously , the Sci Fi channel made it .
And I believe the cliche , cookie cutter military general tried to nuke it and when that did n't work , they used some sort of umm...let 's just say magic to dissipate it cuz it was at least equally idiotic .
Oh and if I 'm not mistaken , the black hole contained some sort of extra terrestrial ghosts that started harrassing townspeople and destroying stuff .
I wish I was making that up but seriously , that was an actual movie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ooh I saw that one!
lol.  No seriously, the Sci Fi channel made it.
And I believe the cliche, cookie cutter military general tried to nuke it and when that didn't work, they used some sort of umm...let's just say magic to dissipate it cuz it was at least equally idiotic.
Oh and if I'm not mistaken, the black hole contained some sort of extra terrestrial ghosts that started harrassing townspeople and destroying stuff.
I wish I was making that up but seriously, that was an actual movie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30879990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30883046</id>
	<title>Compact dimensions with no evidence...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264333140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think these "M-Theorists" are just stringing us along...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think these " M-Theorists " are just stringing us along.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think these "M-Theorists" are just stringing us along...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30879984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880272</id>
	<title>The rise of ignorance...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264360980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's amazing how so many people who never passed a high school science class (or their schools 'science' class hadn't gone past basic atomic structure) are utterly afraid of crackpot doomsday predictions about something scientific that they don't even have the faintest inkling of comprehension of, while all the experts in that field aren't afraid or worried in the slightest.<br>(Now there's a run-on sentence.)<br>Of course those scientist don't say it's impossible, though my understanding is that it's probability of destroying the earth is a bit less than that of a winged monkey to fly out your ass leading a miniature brass band.<br><br>Funny thing about all those colossal energies involved, on the cosmic scale, they don't even qualify as peanut crumbs. If they do produce a black hole (of the extremely miniature variety), it's lifespan will be horrendously short, it's event horizon freaking minuscule, and at that scale the distance to the nearest thing to gobble (assuming it can actually suck it in) is the equivalent of light years away. It's just not going to be a threat. If something that like that could be created by these cosmically insignificant energy levels and actually survive long enough to eat planets, the universe would already be pretty darn empty. There are an uncountable number of energy events that far exceed the LHCs energy levels around us constantly, and if you want the really big ones, just point your telescope pretty much anywhere in space and you'll be pointing at several. If that kind of stuff has been going on for billions of years, and we haven't gone poof yet, you're better off buying a flying monkey proof undies than worrying about calling the LHC the 5th horseman.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's amazing how so many people who never passed a high school science class ( or their schools 'science ' class had n't gone past basic atomic structure ) are utterly afraid of crackpot doomsday predictions about something scientific that they do n't even have the faintest inkling of comprehension of , while all the experts in that field are n't afraid or worried in the slightest .
( Now there 's a run-on sentence .
) Of course those scientist do n't say it 's impossible , though my understanding is that it 's probability of destroying the earth is a bit less than that of a winged monkey to fly out your ass leading a miniature brass band.Funny thing about all those colossal energies involved , on the cosmic scale , they do n't even qualify as peanut crumbs .
If they do produce a black hole ( of the extremely miniature variety ) , it 's lifespan will be horrendously short , it 's event horizon freaking minuscule , and at that scale the distance to the nearest thing to gobble ( assuming it can actually suck it in ) is the equivalent of light years away .
It 's just not going to be a threat .
If something that like that could be created by these cosmically insignificant energy levels and actually survive long enough to eat planets , the universe would already be pretty darn empty .
There are an uncountable number of energy events that far exceed the LHCs energy levels around us constantly , and if you want the really big ones , just point your telescope pretty much anywhere in space and you 'll be pointing at several .
If that kind of stuff has been going on for billions of years , and we have n't gone poof yet , you 're better off buying a flying monkey proof undies than worrying about calling the LHC the 5th horseman .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's amazing how so many people who never passed a high school science class (or their schools 'science' class hadn't gone past basic atomic structure) are utterly afraid of crackpot doomsday predictions about something scientific that they don't even have the faintest inkling of comprehension of, while all the experts in that field aren't afraid or worried in the slightest.
(Now there's a run-on sentence.
)Of course those scientist don't say it's impossible, though my understanding is that it's probability of destroying the earth is a bit less than that of a winged monkey to fly out your ass leading a miniature brass band.Funny thing about all those colossal energies involved, on the cosmic scale, they don't even qualify as peanut crumbs.
If they do produce a black hole (of the extremely miniature variety), it's lifespan will be horrendously short, it's event horizon freaking minuscule, and at that scale the distance to the nearest thing to gobble (assuming it can actually suck it in) is the equivalent of light years away.
It's just not going to be a threat.
If something that like that could be created by these cosmically insignificant energy levels and actually survive long enough to eat planets, the universe would already be pretty darn empty.
There are an uncountable number of energy events that far exceed the LHCs energy levels around us constantly, and if you want the really big ones, just point your telescope pretty much anywhere in space and you'll be pointing at several.
If that kind of stuff has been going on for billions of years, and we haven't gone poof yet, you're better off buying a flying monkey proof undies than worrying about calling the LHC the 5th horseman.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30890340</id>
	<title>So what?</title>
	<author>KiwiCanuck</author>
	<datestamp>1264436280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can create a computer model that says 2+2==5. It doesn't mean that it's true. A computer is a tool for doing complex mathematics (and using Facebook). Does the computer do the research, collect data and publish the journal paper? No. It makes those things easier. It's the human mind that does the hard work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can create a computer model that says 2 + 2 = = 5 .
It does n't mean that it 's true .
A computer is a tool for doing complex mathematics ( and using Facebook ) .
Does the computer do the research , collect data and publish the journal paper ?
No. It makes those things easier .
It 's the human mind that does the hard work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can create a computer model that says 2+2==5.
It doesn't mean that it's true.
A computer is a tool for doing complex mathematics (and using Facebook).
Does the computer do the research, collect data and publish the journal paper?
No. It makes those things easier.
It's the human mind that does the hard work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30882764</id>
	<title>Re:The rise of ignorance...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264331100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Funny thing about all those colossal energies involved, on the cosmic scale, they don't even qualify as peanut crumbs.</p> </div><p>Peanut allergies are very serious, you should not be making light of them.  Slashdot should ban you and ensure that it stays peanut free.</p><p>Think of the children!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny thing about all those colossal energies involved , on the cosmic scale , they do n't even qualify as peanut crumbs .
Peanut allergies are very serious , you should not be making light of them .
Slashdot should ban you and ensure that it stays peanut free.Think of the children !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny thing about all those colossal energies involved, on the cosmic scale, they don't even qualify as peanut crumbs.
Peanut allergies are very serious, you should not be making light of them.
Slashdot should ban you and ensure that it stays peanut free.Think of the children!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30882998</id>
	<title>are you protected?</title>
	<author>pyrocam</author>
	<datestamp>1264332720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you havent already done so, now is a good time to get some <a href="http://www.blackholebunker.com/" title="blackholebunker.com" rel="nofollow"> black hole protection </a> [blackholebunker.com] I am renewing my IS Disaster recovery plan to cover this contingency now\_b</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you havent already done so , now is a good time to get some black hole protection [ blackholebunker.com ] I am renewing my IS Disaster recovery plan to cover this contingency now \ _b</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you havent already done so, now is a good time to get some  black hole protection  [blackholebunker.com] I am renewing my IS Disaster recovery plan to cover this contingency now\_b</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880240</id>
	<title>Re:What's your definition of possible</title>
	<author>Kingrames</author>
	<datestamp>1264360800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps a new unit of measurement to quantify possibility?
<br>
I nominate "the Bullshit."
<br> <br>
We'd have to come up with some landmark positions to establish scale:<br>
<br>
"When someone asks you how you're doing and you say "fine." That's 1 bullshit. They don't care.<br>
When someone asks you about avatar and you say you saw it with your girlfriend, that's 10 bullshits, cause you post on slashdot.<br>
When you say that 2010 will be the year of linux on the desktop, that's somewhere between 10^6 and 10^9 bullshits.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps a new unit of measurement to quantify possibility ?
I nominate " the Bullshit .
" We 'd have to come up with some landmark positions to establish scale : " When someone asks you how you 're doing and you say " fine .
" That 's 1 bullshit .
They do n't care .
When someone asks you about avatar and you say you saw it with your girlfriend , that 's 10 bullshits , cause you post on slashdot .
When you say that 2010 will be the year of linux on the desktop , that 's somewhere between 10 ^ 6 and 10 ^ 9 bullshits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps a new unit of measurement to quantify possibility?
I nominate "the Bullshit.
"
 
We'd have to come up with some landmark positions to establish scale:

"When someone asks you how you're doing and you say "fine.
" That's 1 bullshit.
They don't care.
When someone asks you about avatar and you say you saw it with your girlfriend, that's 10 bullshits, cause you post on slashdot.
When you say that 2010 will be the year of linux on the desktop, that's somewhere between 10^6 and 10^9 bullshits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30879984</id>
	<title>CREATING black holes isn't the issue...</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1264359780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quantum black holes are unstable. Now if they manage to create a <a href="http://www.davidbrin.com/earth1.htm" title="davidbrin.com">tuned string</a> [davidbrin.com] we need to start worrying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quantum black holes are unstable .
Now if they manage to create a tuned string [ davidbrin.com ] we need to start worrying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quantum black holes are unstable.
Now if they manage to create a tuned string [davidbrin.com] we need to start worrying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881570</id>
	<title>Re:The rise of ignorance...</title>
	<author>Cruciform</author>
	<datestamp>1264324320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wouldn't there need to be enough mass present to create a gravity well strong enough to draw in sustenance for the black hole? So that even if you create an itty bitty one it will just evaporate due to starvation and the effects of other gravitational and molecular forces...</p><p>I could almost certainly misunderstand, but I am curious about these subjects.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't there need to be enough mass present to create a gravity well strong enough to draw in sustenance for the black hole ?
So that even if you create an itty bitty one it will just evaporate due to starvation and the effects of other gravitational and molecular forces...I could almost certainly misunderstand , but I am curious about these subjects .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't there need to be enough mass present to create a gravity well strong enough to draw in sustenance for the black hole?
So that even if you create an itty bitty one it will just evaporate due to starvation and the effects of other gravitational and molecular forces...I could almost certainly misunderstand, but I am curious about these subjects.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30883182</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264334220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yup, even IF a black hole was created it would be the size of an atom</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup , even IF a black hole was created it would be the size of an atom</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup, even IF a black hole was created it would be the size of an atom</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880848</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264363560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you aware that the particles in the LHC are moving at ~= the speed of light?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you aware that the particles in the LHC are moving at ~ = the speed of light ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you aware that the particles in the LHC are moving at ~= the speed of light?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30882156</id>
	<title>When some alien race writes the history of earth..</title>
	<author>Brad1138</author>
	<datestamp>1264327800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The last earthlings words spoken will be: OOPS!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The last earthlings words spoken will be : OOPS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The last earthlings words spoken will be: OOPS!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30883644</id>
	<title>Fail category request</title>
	<author>genericpenguin</author>
	<datestamp>1264336920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When the statement "computer model shows conclusively" is used in a particle physics article, what kind of fail is that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When the statement " computer model shows conclusively " is used in a particle physics article , what kind of fail is that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the statement "computer model shows conclusively" is used in a particle physics article, what kind of fail is that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880860</id>
	<title>Ignorance, plain and simple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264363560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Luddites that believe the LHC is going to destroy the Earth are really starting to get on my nerves.  It is obvious even with a simplistic high-school level of understanding that any black holes formed by the LHC (if such a thing is even possible) are completely harmless.  If we were to collide two protons with enough energy to produce a black hole, you would end up with (very temporarily) a black hole that has the mass (and thus gravitational pull) of two protons, with an electric charge of +2.<br> <br>Let's take a look at a Helium atom.  Helium nuclei are (usually) composed of two protons and two neutrons, thus they have roughly twice as much mass (and gravitational pull) as our aforementioned black hole.  This nucleus also carries an electric charge of +2.  That means that Helium nuclei exert <i>more attractive force</i> on their surroundings than the worst-case scenario black hole that can be produced by the LHC.<br> <br>In the most extreme case, the closest that one of these miniature black holes would get to sucking in the matter around them would be to capture an electron or two into orbit around them in the same way as a Helium nuclei would, before the black hole evaporates.  That would be quite an exciting, interesting, <b>and completely harmless</b> development.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Luddites that believe the LHC is going to destroy the Earth are really starting to get on my nerves .
It is obvious even with a simplistic high-school level of understanding that any black holes formed by the LHC ( if such a thing is even possible ) are completely harmless .
If we were to collide two protons with enough energy to produce a black hole , you would end up with ( very temporarily ) a black hole that has the mass ( and thus gravitational pull ) of two protons , with an electric charge of + 2 .
Let 's take a look at a Helium atom .
Helium nuclei are ( usually ) composed of two protons and two neutrons , thus they have roughly twice as much mass ( and gravitational pull ) as our aforementioned black hole .
This nucleus also carries an electric charge of + 2 .
That means that Helium nuclei exert more attractive force on their surroundings than the worst-case scenario black hole that can be produced by the LHC .
In the most extreme case , the closest that one of these miniature black holes would get to sucking in the matter around them would be to capture an electron or two into orbit around them in the same way as a Helium nuclei would , before the black hole evaporates .
That would be quite an exciting , interesting , and completely harmless development .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Luddites that believe the LHC is going to destroy the Earth are really starting to get on my nerves.
It is obvious even with a simplistic high-school level of understanding that any black holes formed by the LHC (if such a thing is even possible) are completely harmless.
If we were to collide two protons with enough energy to produce a black hole, you would end up with (very temporarily) a black hole that has the mass (and thus gravitational pull) of two protons, with an electric charge of +2.
Let's take a look at a Helium atom.
Helium nuclei are (usually) composed of two protons and two neutrons, thus they have roughly twice as much mass (and gravitational pull) as our aforementioned black hole.
This nucleus also carries an electric charge of +2.
That means that Helium nuclei exert more attractive force on their surroundings than the worst-case scenario black hole that can be produced by the LHC.
In the most extreme case, the closest that one of these miniature black holes would get to sucking in the matter around them would be to capture an electron or two into orbit around them in the same way as a Helium nuclei would, before the black hole evaporates.
That would be quite an exciting, interesting, and completely harmless development.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881714</id>
	<title>Re:The rise of ignorance...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264325100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.toothpastefordinner.com/011508/apostrophes-for-sale.gif</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.toothpastefordinner.com/011508/apostrophes-for-sale.gif</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.toothpastefordinner.com/011508/apostrophes-for-sale.gif</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880164</id>
	<title>String theory testable?</title>
	<author>erik.martino</author>
	<datestamp>1264360440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This means that if the earth collapses to a black hole, the extra dimensions exists. This is an incredible result that will most certainly boost confidence in string theory.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This means that if the earth collapses to a black hole , the extra dimensions exists .
This is an incredible result that will most certainly boost confidence in string theory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This means that if the earth collapses to a black hole, the extra dimensions exists.
This is an incredible result that will most certainly boost confidence in string theory.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880042</id>
	<title>Yes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264360020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This would explain why people from the future are trying to stop (not my idea), I do wonder "how stable is the black hole?" "could it fall thru to the center of the planet? Or evaporate after existing momentarily"</p><p>This sort of experimentation seems better suited in deep space than on the planet if the answer to #2 is yes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This would explain why people from the future are trying to stop ( not my idea ) , I do wonder " how stable is the black hole ?
" " could it fall thru to the center of the planet ?
Or evaporate after existing momentarily " This sort of experimentation seems better suited in deep space than on the planet if the answer to # 2 is yes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This would explain why people from the future are trying to stop (not my idea), I do wonder "how stable is the black hole?
" "could it fall thru to the center of the planet?
Or evaporate after existing momentarily"This sort of experimentation seems better suited in deep space than on the planet if the answer to #2 is yes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30879968</id>
	<title>1st</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264359720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880672</id>
	<title>How that people write?</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1264362720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they are scared by the odds of creating a black hole in the LHC, then should be hidden and trembling below their beds as are far more probable ways to end the earth, the human civilization or their own lives in any minute than the black hole one.  Is almost as possible as creating <a href="http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Red\_matter" title="memory-alpha.org">red matter</a> [memory-alpha.org], with the same attributes than in the movie.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they are scared by the odds of creating a black hole in the LHC , then should be hidden and trembling below their beds as are far more probable ways to end the earth , the human civilization or their own lives in any minute than the black hole one .
Is almost as possible as creating red matter [ memory-alpha.org ] , with the same attributes than in the movie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they are scared by the odds of creating a black hole in the LHC, then should be hidden and trembling below their beds as are far more probable ways to end the earth, the human civilization or their own lives in any minute than the black hole one.
Is almost as possible as creating red matter [memory-alpha.org], with the same attributes than in the movie.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30884310</id>
	<title>Re:The rise of ignorance...</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1264341540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's amazing how so many people who never passed a high school science class (or their schools 'science' class hadn't gone past basic atomic structure) are utterly afraid of crackpot doomsday predictions about something scientific that they don't even have the faintest inkling of comprehension of, while all the experts in that field aren't afraid or worried in the slightest.</p></div></blockquote><p>It's not as if passing high school science stops the Slashdot crowd from wild speculation either.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's amazing how so many people who never passed a high school science class ( or their schools 'science ' class had n't gone past basic atomic structure ) are utterly afraid of crackpot doomsday predictions about something scientific that they do n't even have the faintest inkling of comprehension of , while all the experts in that field are n't afraid or worried in the slightest.It 's not as if passing high school science stops the Slashdot crowd from wild speculation either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's amazing how so many people who never passed a high school science class (or their schools 'science' class hadn't gone past basic atomic structure) are utterly afraid of crackpot doomsday predictions about something scientific that they don't even have the faintest inkling of comprehension of, while all the experts in that field aren't afraid or worried in the slightest.It's not as if passing high school science stops the Slashdot crowd from wild speculation either.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880784</id>
	<title>Read the TFA</title>
	<author>JoshuaZ</author>
	<datestamp>1264363200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We always knew that it was likely possible that particle collisions could create black holes. The physicists who said this wouldn't happen at the LHC agreed that that was likely possible. The key is that people with their heads screwed on straight understood that this was vanishingly unlikely for particles in the LHC. All this result shows is that it confirms that there is in fact an energy level where one can create black holes via particle collision, which everyone believed already. Indeed, if it turned out not to be the case it would mean that a lot of our understanding of physics might end up being seriously squirrely. The headline and summary are thus highly misleading.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We always knew that it was likely possible that particle collisions could create black holes .
The physicists who said this would n't happen at the LHC agreed that that was likely possible .
The key is that people with their heads screwed on straight understood that this was vanishingly unlikely for particles in the LHC .
All this result shows is that it confirms that there is in fact an energy level where one can create black holes via particle collision , which everyone believed already .
Indeed , if it turned out not to be the case it would mean that a lot of our understanding of physics might end up being seriously squirrely .
The headline and summary are thus highly misleading .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We always knew that it was likely possible that particle collisions could create black holes.
The physicists who said this wouldn't happen at the LHC agreed that that was likely possible.
The key is that people with their heads screwed on straight understood that this was vanishingly unlikely for particles in the LHC.
All this result shows is that it confirms that there is in fact an energy level where one can create black holes via particle collision, which everyone believed already.
Indeed, if it turned out not to be the case it would mean that a lot of our understanding of physics might end up being seriously squirrely.
The headline and summary are thus highly misleading.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30879984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30885026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30888248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30883192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30912622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30884384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30886018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30887342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30883728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30883096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30883182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30884092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30885192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30884518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30885796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30883382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30885686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30883266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30884762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30879984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30883046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30884232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30882472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30887246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30882332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30884310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30883150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30891444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30879982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30883840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30882788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30888154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30882208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30882374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30884598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30896088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30886322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30882788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30887464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30882764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30884374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30885918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30895558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30884892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30879990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30883908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30883338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30882122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30884574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30885132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30883218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30887426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30883498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30889598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30886280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1722250_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30882072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1722250.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30879984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30883046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881036
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1722250.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30879968
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1722250.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30884574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30886018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30884092
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1722250.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30886280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30883218
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1722250.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30882788
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30888154
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30887464
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1722250.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30879990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880114
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1722250.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880110
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880350
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30882374
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881600
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880848
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30884518
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30884384
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30883338
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881256
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30883182
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30886322
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881400
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30912622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880160
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1722250.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30883150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30885132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880240
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881012
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30883192
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880426
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881108
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1722250.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30884232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880276
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30883266
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1722250.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30887426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30882208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30895558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881264
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1722250.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30887342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880926
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881822
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30882472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1722250.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30882308
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1722250.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30890340
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1722250.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30884598
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1722250.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30882506
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1722250.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30884762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30885026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30885192
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1722250.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30882332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30882764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30883908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30883728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30882122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30885686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30883498
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30889598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30883096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30884310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30896088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30882072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881650
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30885918
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1722250.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880164
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1722250.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30887246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880750
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30884374
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1722250.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30879982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30883840
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1722250.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30880246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30891444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30883382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30884892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30888248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30885796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1722250.30881226
</commentlist>
</conversation>
