<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_26_1950253</id>
	<title>What Is Time? One Researcher Shares His Exploration</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1267180260000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Physicist Sean Carroll has built up a bit of a name for himself by tackling one of the age old questions that no one has been able to fully explain: <a href="http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/02/what-is-time/">What is time?</a>  Earlier this month he gave an interview with Wired where he tried to explain his theories in layman's terms.  <i>"I&rsquo;m trying to understand how time works. And that&rsquo;s a huge question that has lots of different aspects to it. A lot of them go back to Einstein and spacetime and how we measure time using clocks. But the particular aspect of time that I&rsquo;m interested in is the arrow of time: the fact that the past is different from the future. We remember the past but we don&rsquo;t remember the future. There are irreversible processes. There are things that happen, like you turn an egg into an omelet, but you can&rsquo;t turn an omelet into an egg."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Physicist Sean Carroll has built up a bit of a name for himself by tackling one of the age old questions that no one has been able to fully explain : What is time ?
Earlier this month he gave an interview with Wired where he tried to explain his theories in layman 's terms .
" I    m trying to understand how time works .
And that    s a huge question that has lots of different aspects to it .
A lot of them go back to Einstein and spacetime and how we measure time using clocks .
But the particular aspect of time that I    m interested in is the arrow of time : the fact that the past is different from the future .
We remember the past but we don    t remember the future .
There are irreversible processes .
There are things that happen , like you turn an egg into an omelet , but you can    t turn an omelet into an egg .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Physicist Sean Carroll has built up a bit of a name for himself by tackling one of the age old questions that no one has been able to fully explain: What is time?
Earlier this month he gave an interview with Wired where he tried to explain his theories in layman's terms.
"I’m trying to understand how time works.
And that’s a huge question that has lots of different aspects to it.
A lot of them go back to Einstein and spacetime and how we measure time using clocks.
But the particular aspect of time that I’m interested in is the arrow of time: the fact that the past is different from the future.
We remember the past but we don’t remember the future.
There are irreversible processes.
There are things that happen, like you turn an egg into an omelet, but you can’t turn an omelet into an egg.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291908</id>
	<title>Not that it makes sense</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1267185960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just took a linear algebra course, and to perform a translation on a matrix (each column is a coordinate set, each row is x, y or z coordinates), you first add a dimension, and multiply your matrix by an identity matrix with the wanted translation in the extra dimension. In other words, to move stuff using matrix multiplication, you have to add a dimension. It makes no physical sense, but it is interesting to think of time as this added dimension simply facilitating movement.<br> <br>

As for the math I am talking about, I can't format it nicely, but translating by (<b>5</b>,<b>6</b>) looks like this:<br> <br>

Format is [[row 1],[row 2],[row 3]]:<br>
A=[[2 3],[4 5]]<br>
A'=[[2 3 0],[4 5 0],[0 0 1]]<br>
T=[[1 0 <b>5</b>],[0 1 <b>6</b>], [0 0 1]]<br>
A'(translated)=T*A'<br>
A'(translated)=[[7 8 0],[10 11 0],[0 0 1]]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just took a linear algebra course , and to perform a translation on a matrix ( each column is a coordinate set , each row is x , y or z coordinates ) , you first add a dimension , and multiply your matrix by an identity matrix with the wanted translation in the extra dimension .
In other words , to move stuff using matrix multiplication , you have to add a dimension .
It makes no physical sense , but it is interesting to think of time as this added dimension simply facilitating movement .
As for the math I am talking about , I ca n't format it nicely , but translating by ( 5,6 ) looks like this : Format is [ [ row 1 ] , [ row 2 ] , [ row 3 ] ] : A = [ [ 2 3 ] , [ 4 5 ] ] A ' = [ [ 2 3 0 ] , [ 4 5 0 ] , [ 0 0 1 ] ] T = [ [ 1 0 5 ] , [ 0 1 6 ] , [ 0 0 1 ] ] A ' ( translated ) = T * A ' A ' ( translated ) = [ [ 7 8 0 ] , [ 10 11 0 ] , [ 0 0 1 ] ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just took a linear algebra course, and to perform a translation on a matrix (each column is a coordinate set, each row is x, y or z coordinates), you first add a dimension, and multiply your matrix by an identity matrix with the wanted translation in the extra dimension.
In other words, to move stuff using matrix multiplication, you have to add a dimension.
It makes no physical sense, but it is interesting to think of time as this added dimension simply facilitating movement.
As for the math I am talking about, I can't format it nicely, but translating by (5,6) looks like this: 

Format is [[row 1],[row 2],[row 3]]:
A=[[2 3],[4 5]]
A'=[[2 3 0],[4 5 0],[0 0 1]]
T=[[1 0 5],[0 1 6], [0 0 1]]
A'(translated)=T*A'
A'(translated)=[[7 8 0],[10 11 0],[0 0 1]]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292070</id>
	<title>Re:Timeline</title>
	<author>caffeinemessiah</author>
	<datestamp>1267186860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Except<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... medical studies show that 'Deja Vu' is really just <b>glitches in the matrix</b>.</p></div><p>
There, corrected that for you (an old and tired meme, yes).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except ... medical studies show that 'Deja Vu ' is really just glitches in the matrix .
There , corrected that for you ( an old and tired meme , yes ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except ... medical studies show that 'Deja Vu' is really just glitches in the matrix.
There, corrected that for you (an old and tired meme, yes).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291870</id>
	<title>Making fire burn backwards</title>
	<author>handy\_vandal</author>
	<datestamp>1267185720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Larry Niven wrote that "A man who can make fire burn backwards is mighty wizard indeed", or words to that effect.  One of his short stories, I forget which.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Larry Niven wrote that " A man who can make fire burn backwards is mighty wizard indeed " , or words to that effect .
One of his short stories , I forget which .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Larry Niven wrote that "A man who can make fire burn backwards is mighty wizard indeed", or words to that effect.
One of his short stories, I forget which.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293824</id>
	<title>Time might flow backwards. . .</title>
	<author>JSBiff</author>
	<datestamp>1267197540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps time does flow back and forth. . . except that we, caught in time, would never know the difference, yes? If "time" represents the configurations of matter and energy in the universe, if time ever did flow backwards, our minds would seem to reset back to that point in time, and we would never remember having been in the future (of if it rolled back far enough, we would no longer exist, waiting yet again to be born)?</p><p>Can Science really ever say, with a certainty, that time never does go backwards? All we can say is that if time does go backwards, we would never be able to detect it. You'd need an observational point outside of time to see such ebb and flow (if it happened to exist), wouldn't you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps time does flow back and forth .
. .
except that we , caught in time , would never know the difference , yes ?
If " time " represents the configurations of matter and energy in the universe , if time ever did flow backwards , our minds would seem to reset back to that point in time , and we would never remember having been in the future ( of if it rolled back far enough , we would no longer exist , waiting yet again to be born ) ? Can Science really ever say , with a certainty , that time never does go backwards ?
All we can say is that if time does go backwards , we would never be able to detect it .
You 'd need an observational point outside of time to see such ebb and flow ( if it happened to exist ) , would n't you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps time does flow back and forth.
. .
except that we, caught in time, would never know the difference, yes?
If "time" represents the configurations of matter and energy in the universe, if time ever did flow backwards, our minds would seem to reset back to that point in time, and we would never remember having been in the future (of if it rolled back far enough, we would no longer exist, waiting yet again to be born)?Can Science really ever say, with a certainty, that time never does go backwards?
All we can say is that if time does go backwards, we would never be able to detect it.
You'd need an observational point outside of time to see such ebb and flow (if it happened to exist), wouldn't you?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292490</id>
	<title>Re:My head hurts....</title>
	<author>madpansy</author>
	<datestamp>1267188840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What has been seen cannot be unseen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What has been seen can not be unseen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What has been seen cannot be unseen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31296236</id>
	<title>Time - addendum.</title>
	<author>cavebison</author>
	<datestamp>1267279320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Time is not the "4th dimension" - that's a completely arbitrary and illogical statement. May as well say "thought" is the fourth dimension. Time is not "sideways to" the 3 dimensions of space.</p><p>Time is not necessarily a property of the universe at all. All we can directly measure is CHANGE. We cannot directly measure TIME, however we do measure change *as a function of something*. That sometime is, basically, other changes. That is to say, our perception of what we call "time" is just our brains comparing one set of changes with another.</p><p>Time is something that we, as humans, agree on. If we did not all have some kind of common "ticker" in the brain, which measures a beat we all have in common, the effect would be that we would not agree with each other on how fast time is going.</p><p>Time is relative in a much more encompassing way than Einstein meant (I won't say more "subtle" or "profound", that's silly talk). Drugs can change our perception of time, yet we say, "no - time is more or less constant". But that's only because the vast majority of us run at the same "speed". Whatever changes in the brain allow us to measure time, it's the same for all of us most of the.. er, time. So to speak.</p><p>There is no time. There is only change. You might say there can be no "change" without time - something to measure change against. So I say time is all about *perception*. If we had no memory at all, we would not be able to experience time. Time is the experience of change in relation to what our brains said was the state of things a second ago.</p><p>So I think Adams was right, and time is an illusion, in the most timeless sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time is not the " 4th dimension " - that 's a completely arbitrary and illogical statement .
May as well say " thought " is the fourth dimension .
Time is not " sideways to " the 3 dimensions of space.Time is not necessarily a property of the universe at all .
All we can directly measure is CHANGE .
We can not directly measure TIME , however we do measure change * as a function of something * .
That sometime is , basically , other changes .
That is to say , our perception of what we call " time " is just our brains comparing one set of changes with another.Time is something that we , as humans , agree on .
If we did not all have some kind of common " ticker " in the brain , which measures a beat we all have in common , the effect would be that we would not agree with each other on how fast time is going.Time is relative in a much more encompassing way than Einstein meant ( I wo n't say more " subtle " or " profound " , that 's silly talk ) .
Drugs can change our perception of time , yet we say , " no - time is more or less constant " .
But that 's only because the vast majority of us run at the same " speed " .
Whatever changes in the brain allow us to measure time , it 's the same for all of us most of the.. er , time .
So to speak.There is no time .
There is only change .
You might say there can be no " change " without time - something to measure change against .
So I say time is all about * perception * .
If we had no memory at all , we would not be able to experience time .
Time is the experience of change in relation to what our brains said was the state of things a second ago.So I think Adams was right , and time is an illusion , in the most timeless sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time is not the "4th dimension" - that's a completely arbitrary and illogical statement.
May as well say "thought" is the fourth dimension.
Time is not "sideways to" the 3 dimensions of space.Time is not necessarily a property of the universe at all.
All we can directly measure is CHANGE.
We cannot directly measure TIME, however we do measure change *as a function of something*.
That sometime is, basically, other changes.
That is to say, our perception of what we call "time" is just our brains comparing one set of changes with another.Time is something that we, as humans, agree on.
If we did not all have some kind of common "ticker" in the brain, which measures a beat we all have in common, the effect would be that we would not agree with each other on how fast time is going.Time is relative in a much more encompassing way than Einstein meant (I won't say more "subtle" or "profound", that's silly talk).
Drugs can change our perception of time, yet we say, "no - time is more or less constant".
But that's only because the vast majority of us run at the same "speed".
Whatever changes in the brain allow us to measure time, it's the same for all of us most of the.. er, time.
So to speak.There is no time.
There is only change.
You might say there can be no "change" without time - something to measure change against.
So I say time is all about *perception*.
If we had no memory at all, we would not be able to experience time.
Time is the experience of change in relation to what our brains said was the state of things a second ago.So I think Adams was right, and time is an illusion, in the most timeless sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291620</id>
	<title>[...]you can't turn an omelet into an egg.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267184340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe not directly, but you <i>can</i> feed that omelet to a chicken, and then take the resulting egg.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe not directly , but you can feed that omelet to a chicken , and then take the resulting egg .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe not directly, but you can feed that omelet to a chicken, and then take the resulting egg.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292080</id>
	<title>In TFA, he basically contradicts evolution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267186860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA:</p><p>Entropy goes up with time, things become more disorderly</p><p>Basically, our observable universe begins around 13.7 billion years ago in a state of exquisite order, exquisitely low entropy. It&rsquo;s like the universe is a wind-up toy that has been sort of puttering along for the last 13.7 billion years and will eventually wind down to nothing.</p><p>So, if entropy goes up with time, and things become more disorderly, how is it that species and advanced life forms become more orderly?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : Entropy goes up with time , things become more disorderlyBasically , our observable universe begins around 13.7 billion years ago in a state of exquisite order , exquisitely low entropy .
It    s like the universe is a wind-up toy that has been sort of puttering along for the last 13.7 billion years and will eventually wind down to nothing.So , if entropy goes up with time , and things become more disorderly , how is it that species and advanced life forms become more orderly ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:Entropy goes up with time, things become more disorderlyBasically, our observable universe begins around 13.7 billion years ago in a state of exquisite order, exquisitely low entropy.
It’s like the universe is a wind-up toy that has been sort of puttering along for the last 13.7 billion years and will eventually wind down to nothing.So, if entropy goes up with time, and things become more disorderly, how is it that species and advanced life forms become more orderly?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292466</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1267188720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps what you suggest is exactly what's happening now. Then the question would still be why do we remember in only one direction and why don't we ever un-un-break things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps what you suggest is exactly what 's happening now .
Then the question would still be why do we remember in only one direction and why do n't we ever un-un-break things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps what you suggest is exactly what's happening now.
Then the question would still be why do we remember in only one direction and why don't we ever un-un-break things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31295524</id>
	<title>Re:My head hurts....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267262280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think there are three physical interpretations of sub-atomic processes that allow for time reversal.  One if the Feynman-Wheeler absorber theory of electromagnetism, which allows for the backward-propagation of electromagnetic waves normally thrown out, but which is a mathematically valid solution to Maxwell's equations.  A second is the Feynman-Stuckleberg interpretation that a positron is just an electron which is traveling backwards through time.  A third is Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of quantum mechanics, which was motivated by the Feynman-Wheeler absorber theory, and holds that the psi is a physical wave propagating forward in time, while psi^(Dirac conjugate) is a wave traveling backwards in time.  These waves are exchanged back and forth until a standing wave is created between the interacting particles, causing the event to occur.  The event is spread out over a finite interval of spacetime, and does not occur at a single point in spacetime.  An interesting idea which people have variously claimed to have debunked, and de-de-bunked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think there are three physical interpretations of sub-atomic processes that allow for time reversal .
One if the Feynman-Wheeler absorber theory of electromagnetism , which allows for the backward-propagation of electromagnetic waves normally thrown out , but which is a mathematically valid solution to Maxwell 's equations .
A second is the Feynman-Stuckleberg interpretation that a positron is just an electron which is traveling backwards through time .
A third is Cramer 's Transactional Interpretation of quantum mechanics , which was motivated by the Feynman-Wheeler absorber theory , and holds that the psi is a physical wave propagating forward in time , while psi ^ ( Dirac conjugate ) is a wave traveling backwards in time .
These waves are exchanged back and forth until a standing wave is created between the interacting particles , causing the event to occur .
The event is spread out over a finite interval of spacetime , and does not occur at a single point in spacetime .
An interesting idea which people have variously claimed to have debunked , and de-de-bunked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think there are three physical interpretations of sub-atomic processes that allow for time reversal.
One if the Feynman-Wheeler absorber theory of electromagnetism, which allows for the backward-propagation of electromagnetic waves normally thrown out, but which is a mathematically valid solution to Maxwell's equations.
A second is the Feynman-Stuckleberg interpretation that a positron is just an electron which is traveling backwards through time.
A third is Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of quantum mechanics, which was motivated by the Feynman-Wheeler absorber theory, and holds that the psi is a physical wave propagating forward in time, while psi^(Dirac conjugate) is a wave traveling backwards in time.
These waves are exchanged back and forth until a standing wave is created between the interacting particles, causing the event to occur.
The event is spread out over a finite interval of spacetime, and does not occur at a single point in spacetime.
An interesting idea which people have variously claimed to have debunked, and de-de-bunked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31303320</id>
	<title>Re:Time might flow backwards. . .</title>
	<author>mindstrm</author>
	<datestamp>1267299060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm... so maybe when we see, like, a photon suddenly decay into a positron and electron, which then annihilate each other and turn back into a photon - maybe that was just a little weirdness and the positron was just the same electron but going backwards in time? (Which would still be going forwards in time, from our point of  view, with properties reversed)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm... so maybe when we see , like , a photon suddenly decay into a positron and electron , which then annihilate each other and turn back into a photon - maybe that was just a little weirdness and the positron was just the same electron but going backwards in time ?
( Which would still be going forwards in time , from our point of view , with properties reversed )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm... so maybe when we see, like, a photon suddenly decay into a positron and electron, which then annihilate each other and turn back into a photon - maybe that was just a little weirdness and the positron was just the same electron but going backwards in time?
(Which would still be going forwards in time, from our point of  view, with properties reversed)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292552</id>
	<title>Re:Time does not exist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267189260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Prove me wrong.</p></div><p>The burden of proof lies on you to make such claims. As to the speculation that time does not exist- if time did not exist, how would you explain the relativity of simultaneity? In special relativity, two observers will disagree on whether or not events are simultaneous if they have different velocities. In a nutshell, one observer can view two events that, from another observer's perspective, are happening at different times. If you were correct in your assertion that only the present moment existed, there wouldn't be any ambiguity on whether two events happened at once- there would only be one possible moment they could be in!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Prove me wrong.The burden of proof lies on you to make such claims .
As to the speculation that time does not exist- if time did not exist , how would you explain the relativity of simultaneity ?
In special relativity , two observers will disagree on whether or not events are simultaneous if they have different velocities .
In a nutshell , one observer can view two events that , from another observer 's perspective , are happening at different times .
If you were correct in your assertion that only the present moment existed , there would n't be any ambiguity on whether two events happened at once- there would only be one possible moment they could be in !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Prove me wrong.The burden of proof lies on you to make such claims.
As to the speculation that time does not exist- if time did not exist, how would you explain the relativity of simultaneity?
In special relativity, two observers will disagree on whether or not events are simultaneous if they have different velocities.
In a nutshell, one observer can view two events that, from another observer's perspective, are happening at different times.
If you were correct in your assertion that only the present moment existed, there wouldn't be any ambiguity on whether two events happened at once- there would only be one possible moment they could be in!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31295432</id>
	<title>Re:My head hurts....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267304160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the decay of the neutral kaon system violates CP (charge, parity) invariance.  It is more likely to produce matter than antimatter.  This reaction has a statistical bias as far as a "direction of time".  I also think Pauli showed that quantum field theory predicts that interactions must always preserve CPT invariance (charge, parity, time reversal).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the decay of the neutral kaon system violates CP ( charge , parity ) invariance .
It is more likely to produce matter than antimatter .
This reaction has a statistical bias as far as a " direction of time " .
I also think Pauli showed that quantum field theory predicts that interactions must always preserve CPT invariance ( charge , parity , time reversal ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the decay of the neutral kaon system violates CP (charge, parity) invariance.
It is more likely to produce matter than antimatter.
This reaction has a statistical bias as far as a "direction of time".
I also think Pauli showed that quantum field theory predicts that interactions must always preserve CPT invariance (charge, parity, time reversal).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292374</id>
	<title>Re:Timeline</title>
	<author>jhoegl</author>
	<datestamp>1267188240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Interesting, I thought medical studies show that Deja Vu was something similar that happened in the past.<br>
Not the most credible source.. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D\%C3\%A9j\%C3\%A0\_vu" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D\%C3\%A9j\%C3\%A0\_vu</a> [wikipedia.org] <br>
<br>
In my experiences of Deja Vu I tend to get tunnel vision, in that my eyesight gets blurry everyone but where my center iris is focused. I also get a sense of fight/flight coursing through my body as my brain tries to interpret what is going on and recalls anything that may have happened previously. In some cases I find that there was a decision I made that was similar to the situation that turned out good or turned out bad, and thus I made my decisions accordingly. In other Deja Vu situations, it was just a snapshot occurance.<br>
In either case, I found no supporting information for your synopsis and wish for citation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting , I thought medical studies show that Deja Vu was something similar that happened in the past .
Not the most credible source.. http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D \ % C3 \ % A9j \ % C3 \ % A0 \ _vu [ wikipedia.org ] In my experiences of Deja Vu I tend to get tunnel vision , in that my eyesight gets blurry everyone but where my center iris is focused .
I also get a sense of fight/flight coursing through my body as my brain tries to interpret what is going on and recalls anything that may have happened previously .
In some cases I find that there was a decision I made that was similar to the situation that turned out good or turned out bad , and thus I made my decisions accordingly .
In other Deja Vu situations , it was just a snapshot occurance .
In either case , I found no supporting information for your synopsis and wish for citation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting, I thought medical studies show that Deja Vu was something similar that happened in the past.
Not the most credible source.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D\%C3\%A9j\%C3\%A0\_vu [wikipedia.org] 

In my experiences of Deja Vu I tend to get tunnel vision, in that my eyesight gets blurry everyone but where my center iris is focused.
I also get a sense of fight/flight coursing through my body as my brain tries to interpret what is going on and recalls anything that may have happened previously.
In some cases I find that there was a decision I made that was similar to the situation that turned out good or turned out bad, and thus I made my decisions accordingly.
In other Deja Vu situations, it was just a snapshot occurance.
In either case, I found no supporting information for your synopsis and wish for citation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292040</id>
	<title>Time travel to the past and Uncle Rico moments.</title>
	<author>t0qer</author>
	<datestamp>1267186680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some of you may remember Uncle Rico from Napoleon Dynamite.  He was the uncle that lived in his van, taping himself throwing a football to himself, and was constantly wishing he could go back in time so he could relive one of his football moments and his life would be perfect.  I've been having some similar moments (except in my case, there was an ex gf I had in HS, parents kicked me out, and she thought I abandoned her, 20 years later I find her and she's still makes me sigh but she's married with kids, like I am)</p><p>So with my slightly smarter than Rico brain I've been exploring the possibility of time travel.  I have no physics background, etc.</p><p>It started off with a dream I had.  I saw what looked like torus's made of water flying past me, like distortion waves.  After they passed, I was in the past.  I think the inspiration came from the Atlas 5 rocket going through the sundog last month.<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsDEfu8s1Lw&amp;feature=player\_embedded#" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsDEfu8s1Lw&amp;feature=player\_embedded#</a> [youtube.com]</p><p>The next day I read up on bending time/space into a torus.  I found out that at the speed of light, this is what happens to time/space naturally.<br><a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/17397008/SPINORS-TWISTORS-QUATERNIONS-AND-THE-SPACETIME-TORUS-TOPOLOGY-Paper" title="scribd.com">http://www.scribd.com/doc/17397008/SPINORS-TWISTORS-QUATERNIONS-AND-THE-SPACETIME-TORUS-TOPOLOGY-Paper</a> [scribd.com]</p><p>I also know a bit about relativity.  If I travel from earth at lightspeed, from my perspective on my spaceship time has stopped on earth.</p><p>So I started questioning what would happen if a torus of space time flew past me at the speed of light, and I was in the center of the torus as it passed.  Would time stop around me while I remain in a normal time space? What if it went beyond light speed, would time begin to slowly go backwards?</p><p>If space/time travelling at 0 = our perceived passage of time.<br>If space/time travelling at 299,792,458 mph = time stopped<br>Then wouldn't space/time travelling at 599,584,916mph = our perceived passage of time in reverse?</p><p>Basically saying that at 599,584,916mph it would take me 22 years to get back to my sweetheart. If I wanted to get there in a few hours I'd be looking at getting space time to pass me by at 13,190,868,152,000mph</p><p>I'm not trying to say this is a valid theory, like I said I have no physics background at all. It's just something I've been thinking about a lot.  The whole torus thing like I said, it was a dream and my thought was the reason you would want to bend space/time into a torus is to keep a region in the center of non bent time/space so you, the traveler would be safe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of you may remember Uncle Rico from Napoleon Dynamite .
He was the uncle that lived in his van , taping himself throwing a football to himself , and was constantly wishing he could go back in time so he could relive one of his football moments and his life would be perfect .
I 've been having some similar moments ( except in my case , there was an ex gf I had in HS , parents kicked me out , and she thought I abandoned her , 20 years later I find her and she 's still makes me sigh but she 's married with kids , like I am ) So with my slightly smarter than Rico brain I 've been exploring the possibility of time travel .
I have no physics background , etc.It started off with a dream I had .
I saw what looked like torus 's made of water flying past me , like distortion waves .
After they passed , I was in the past .
I think the inspiration came from the Atlas 5 rocket going through the sundog last month.http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = SsDEfu8s1Lw&amp;feature = player \ _embedded # [ youtube.com ] The next day I read up on bending time/space into a torus .
I found out that at the speed of light , this is what happens to time/space naturally.http : //www.scribd.com/doc/17397008/SPINORS-TWISTORS-QUATERNIONS-AND-THE-SPACETIME-TORUS-TOPOLOGY-Paper [ scribd.com ] I also know a bit about relativity .
If I travel from earth at lightspeed , from my perspective on my spaceship time has stopped on earth.So I started questioning what would happen if a torus of space time flew past me at the speed of light , and I was in the center of the torus as it passed .
Would time stop around me while I remain in a normal time space ?
What if it went beyond light speed , would time begin to slowly go backwards ? If space/time travelling at 0 = our perceived passage of time.If space/time travelling at 299,792,458 mph = time stoppedThen would n't space/time travelling at 599,584,916mph = our perceived passage of time in reverse ? Basically saying that at 599,584,916mph it would take me 22 years to get back to my sweetheart .
If I wanted to get there in a few hours I 'd be looking at getting space time to pass me by at 13,190,868,152,000mphI 'm not trying to say this is a valid theory , like I said I have no physics background at all .
It 's just something I 've been thinking about a lot .
The whole torus thing like I said , it was a dream and my thought was the reason you would want to bend space/time into a torus is to keep a region in the center of non bent time/space so you , the traveler would be safe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of you may remember Uncle Rico from Napoleon Dynamite.
He was the uncle that lived in his van, taping himself throwing a football to himself, and was constantly wishing he could go back in time so he could relive one of his football moments and his life would be perfect.
I've been having some similar moments (except in my case, there was an ex gf I had in HS, parents kicked me out, and she thought I abandoned her, 20 years later I find her and she's still makes me sigh but she's married with kids, like I am)So with my slightly smarter than Rico brain I've been exploring the possibility of time travel.
I have no physics background, etc.It started off with a dream I had.
I saw what looked like torus's made of water flying past me, like distortion waves.
After they passed, I was in the past.
I think the inspiration came from the Atlas 5 rocket going through the sundog last month.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsDEfu8s1Lw&amp;feature=player\_embedded# [youtube.com]The next day I read up on bending time/space into a torus.
I found out that at the speed of light, this is what happens to time/space naturally.http://www.scribd.com/doc/17397008/SPINORS-TWISTORS-QUATERNIONS-AND-THE-SPACETIME-TORUS-TOPOLOGY-Paper [scribd.com]I also know a bit about relativity.
If I travel from earth at lightspeed, from my perspective on my spaceship time has stopped on earth.So I started questioning what would happen if a torus of space time flew past me at the speed of light, and I was in the center of the torus as it passed.
Would time stop around me while I remain in a normal time space?
What if it went beyond light speed, would time begin to slowly go backwards?If space/time travelling at 0 = our perceived passage of time.If space/time travelling at 299,792,458 mph = time stoppedThen wouldn't space/time travelling at 599,584,916mph = our perceived passage of time in reverse?Basically saying that at 599,584,916mph it would take me 22 years to get back to my sweetheart.
If I wanted to get there in a few hours I'd be looking at getting space time to pass me by at 13,190,868,152,000mphI'm not trying to say this is a valid theory, like I said I have no physics background at all.
It's just something I've been thinking about a lot.
The whole torus thing like I said, it was a dream and my thought was the reason you would want to bend space/time into a torus is to keep a region in the center of non bent time/space so you, the traveler would be safe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292950</id>
	<title>Re:Timeline</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267191540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought they were just glitches in the matrix</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought they were just glitches in the matrix</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought they were just glitches in the matrix</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291912</id>
	<title>Order to chaos</title>
	<author>dandart</author>
	<datestamp>1267185960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The direction of time is order to chaos (with a few exceptions). The universe is more chaotic than it used to be, but with packets of order.
<br> <br>Fundamentally, it takes a little energy to turn order to chaos but a lot of energy to turn chaos to order. Like breaking an egg, or thermodynamic laws (energy moving from hot objects to cold objects, due to hot objects having more entropy).</htmltext>
<tokenext>The direction of time is order to chaos ( with a few exceptions ) .
The universe is more chaotic than it used to be , but with packets of order .
Fundamentally , it takes a little energy to turn order to chaos but a lot of energy to turn chaos to order .
Like breaking an egg , or thermodynamic laws ( energy moving from hot objects to cold objects , due to hot objects having more entropy ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The direction of time is order to chaos (with a few exceptions).
The universe is more chaotic than it used to be, but with packets of order.
Fundamentally, it takes a little energy to turn order to chaos but a lot of energy to turn chaos to order.
Like breaking an egg, or thermodynamic laws (energy moving from hot objects to cold objects, due to hot objects having more entropy).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293364</id>
	<title>Re:Timeline</title>
	<author>rxan</author>
	<datestamp>1267194420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With the linear and subject viewpoint of your own (and every other human), how would you ever be able to tell?

Looks like we need Q on our side for this one<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</htmltext>
<tokenext>With the linear and subject viewpoint of your own ( and every other human ) , how would you ever be able to tell ?
Looks like we need Q on our side for this one : P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the linear and subject viewpoint of your own (and every other human), how would you ever be able to tell?
Looks like we need Q on our side for this one :P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31295374</id>
	<title>The multiverse, again</title>
	<author>jopet</author>
	<datestamp>1267303380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Theories that involve the multiverse are, in my opinion, nearly as unscientific and embarrassing as religion or theories that involve "god": you can "explain" nearly everything and you can prove nothing. Give me a break with multiverses.</p><p>How is the question why there is a multiverse that spawns off universes randomly so much nicer that the question why there is a universe? It is equally unanswerable but introduces complexity: let occam's razor cut away the multiverse part until there is anything that is falsifyable about the story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Theories that involve the multiverse are , in my opinion , nearly as unscientific and embarrassing as religion or theories that involve " god " : you can " explain " nearly everything and you can prove nothing .
Give me a break with multiverses.How is the question why there is a multiverse that spawns off universes randomly so much nicer that the question why there is a universe ?
It is equally unanswerable but introduces complexity : let occam 's razor cut away the multiverse part until there is anything that is falsifyable about the story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Theories that involve the multiverse are, in my opinion, nearly as unscientific and embarrassing as religion or theories that involve "god": you can "explain" nearly everything and you can prove nothing.
Give me a break with multiverses.How is the question why there is a multiverse that spawns off universes randomly so much nicer that the question why there is a universe?
It is equally unanswerable but introduces complexity: let occam's razor cut away the multiverse part until there is anything that is falsifyable about the story.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293964</id>
	<title>TFA is bullshit</title>
	<author>mestar</author>
	<datestamp>1267198740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I got zero new information about time in the article.</p><p>From wikipedia:<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>"Entropy is the only quantity in the physical sciences that seems to imply a particular direction for time, sometimes called an arrow of time. As we go "forward" in time, the second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system tends to increase or remain the same; it will not decrease. Hence, from one perspective, entropy measurement is thought of as a kind of clock"</p><p>Bad car analogy:<br>This is silly in a same way if you had an indicator light that would turn on only if you are going forward, and then call that light "a speedometer".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I got zero new information about time in the article.From wikipedia : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy [ wikipedia.org ] " Entropy is the only quantity in the physical sciences that seems to imply a particular direction for time , sometimes called an arrow of time .
As we go " forward " in time , the second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system tends to increase or remain the same ; it will not decrease .
Hence , from one perspective , entropy measurement is thought of as a kind of clock " Bad car analogy : This is silly in a same way if you had an indicator light that would turn on only if you are going forward , and then call that light " a speedometer " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got zero new information about time in the article.From wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy [wikipedia.org]"Entropy is the only quantity in the physical sciences that seems to imply a particular direction for time, sometimes called an arrow of time.
As we go "forward" in time, the second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system tends to increase or remain the same; it will not decrease.
Hence, from one perspective, entropy measurement is thought of as a kind of clock"Bad car analogy:This is silly in a same way if you had an indicator light that would turn on only if you are going forward, and then call that light "a speedometer".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31295360</id>
	<title>His Dark Matter &amp; Dark Energy Series on TTC</title>
	<author>slaingod</author>
	<datestamp>1267303200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... is pretty good at least.  Good presenter and obviously knows his stuff. Sits in a room with Feynman's desk or something at Caltech.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... is pretty good at least .
Good presenter and obviously knows his stuff .
Sits in a room with Feynman 's desk or something at Caltech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... is pretty good at least.
Good presenter and obviously knows his stuff.
Sits in a room with Feynman's desk or something at Caltech.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291856</id>
	<title>My Theory</title>
	<author>macaulay805</author>
	<datestamp>1267185600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which I came up with so long ago is:  Time is a measurement of location and actions.<br>Location: The relative point you were at in space, includes local (Earth) and/or celestial location.<br>Actions: What you were doing at the time.</p><p>In history, we measure where we were and what we were doing.<br>In present, where we are now and what we're doing.<br>In future, where we will be and what we will be doing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which I came up with so long ago is : Time is a measurement of location and actions.Location : The relative point you were at in space , includes local ( Earth ) and/or celestial location.Actions : What you were doing at the time.In history , we measure where we were and what we were doing.In present , where we are now and what we 're doing.In future , where we will be and what we will be doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which I came up with so long ago is:  Time is a measurement of location and actions.Location: The relative point you were at in space, includes local (Earth) and/or celestial location.Actions: What you were doing at the time.In history, we measure where we were and what we were doing.In present, where we are now and what we're doing.In future, where we will be and what we will be doing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291582</id>
	<title>Easy</title>
	<author>Yvan256</author>
	<datestamp>1267184100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FORD: No, No listen. Just imagine that you&rsquo;ve got this ebony bath, right? And it&rsquo;s conical.</p><p>ARTHUR: Conical? What kind of bath is -</p><p>FORD: No, no, shh, shhh, it&rsquo;s, it&rsquo;s, it&rsquo;s conical okay? So what you do, you fill it with fine white sand right? Or sugar, or anything like that. And when it&rsquo;s full, you pull the plug out and it all just twirls down out of the plug hole but the thing is</p><p>ARTHUR: Why?</p><p>FORD: No, the clever thing is that you film it happening. You get a movie camera from somewhere and actually film it. But then you thread the film in the projector backwards.</p><p>ARTHUR: Backwards?</p><p>FORD: Yeah, neat you see. So what happens is you sit and you watch it and then everything appears to swirl upwards, out of the plug hole and fill the bath amazing.</p><p>ARTHUR: And that&rsquo;s how the universe began?</p><p>FORD: No. But it&rsquo;s a marvellous way to relax.</p><p>TRILLIAN: Funny man.</p><p>FORD: Well it broke the ice didn&rsquo;t it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FORD : No , No listen .
Just imagine that you    ve got this ebony bath , right ?
And it    s conical.ARTHUR : Conical ?
What kind of bath is -FORD : No , no , shh , shhh , it    s , it    s , it    s conical okay ?
So what you do , you fill it with fine white sand right ?
Or sugar , or anything like that .
And when it    s full , you pull the plug out and it all just twirls down out of the plug hole but the thing isARTHUR : Why ? FORD : No , the clever thing is that you film it happening .
You get a movie camera from somewhere and actually film it .
But then you thread the film in the projector backwards.ARTHUR : Backwards ? FORD : Yeah , neat you see .
So what happens is you sit and you watch it and then everything appears to swirl upwards , out of the plug hole and fill the bath amazing.ARTHUR : And that    s how the universe began ? FORD : No .
But it    s a marvellous way to relax.TRILLIAN : Funny man.FORD : Well it broke the ice didn    t it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FORD: No, No listen.
Just imagine that you’ve got this ebony bath, right?
And it’s conical.ARTHUR: Conical?
What kind of bath is -FORD: No, no, shh, shhh, it’s, it’s, it’s conical okay?
So what you do, you fill it with fine white sand right?
Or sugar, or anything like that.
And when it’s full, you pull the plug out and it all just twirls down out of the plug hole but the thing isARTHUR: Why?FORD: No, the clever thing is that you film it happening.
You get a movie camera from somewhere and actually film it.
But then you thread the film in the projector backwards.ARTHUR: Backwards?FORD: Yeah, neat you see.
So what happens is you sit and you watch it and then everything appears to swirl upwards, out of the plug hole and fill the bath amazing.ARTHUR: And that’s how the universe began?FORD: No.
But it’s a marvellous way to relax.TRILLIAN: Funny man.FORD: Well it broke the ice didn’t it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31294852</id>
	<title>Re:Time travel to the past and Uncle Rico moments.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267208700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Then wouldn't space/time travelling at 599,584,916mph = our perceived passage of time in reverse?</p></div><p>Somebody else already explained it using length contraction, but "nothing can go faster than the speed of light" isn't a constraint made up for science fiction.  It's literally impossible to reach the speed of light.  I'll explain the length contraction thing with an example.</p><p>Pick two reference points.  Your place of origin, and the place you're trying to get to.  Say the distance between them is 10 (I'll ignore units for now).  You start using energy to go faster.  If you're pretty far from the speed of light, the distance still looks like 10 from what you can measure, and you can tell that your speed is increasing.  As you get on the other end of the scale, when you're already pretty close to lightspeed, adding more energy doesn't seem to affect the speed you're moving at very much.  It just makes the distance between your point of origin and destination shorter (say 0.0000001 of whatever units we made up).  So, adding energy to "accelerate" will still get you there faster (from your perspective), but your measured speed isn't really increasing significantly (so from the perspective of people in your origin point, you're not adding a lot of energy and not gaining much time).</p><p>When you're AT lightspeed (you can't get there, your kinetic energy would be inifinite, since you have mass), everything in the direction of travel is at a single point, the one you are at.  So what are you measuring your speed in relation to to go "faster"?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then would n't space/time travelling at 599,584,916mph = our perceived passage of time in reverse ? Somebody else already explained it using length contraction , but " nothing can go faster than the speed of light " is n't a constraint made up for science fiction .
It 's literally impossible to reach the speed of light .
I 'll explain the length contraction thing with an example.Pick two reference points .
Your place of origin , and the place you 're trying to get to .
Say the distance between them is 10 ( I 'll ignore units for now ) .
You start using energy to go faster .
If you 're pretty far from the speed of light , the distance still looks like 10 from what you can measure , and you can tell that your speed is increasing .
As you get on the other end of the scale , when you 're already pretty close to lightspeed , adding more energy does n't seem to affect the speed you 're moving at very much .
It just makes the distance between your point of origin and destination shorter ( say 0.0000001 of whatever units we made up ) .
So , adding energy to " accelerate " will still get you there faster ( from your perspective ) , but your measured speed is n't really increasing significantly ( so from the perspective of people in your origin point , you 're not adding a lot of energy and not gaining much time ) .When you 're AT lightspeed ( you ca n't get there , your kinetic energy would be inifinite , since you have mass ) , everything in the direction of travel is at a single point , the one you are at .
So what are you measuring your speed in relation to to go " faster " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then wouldn't space/time travelling at 599,584,916mph = our perceived passage of time in reverse?Somebody else already explained it using length contraction, but "nothing can go faster than the speed of light" isn't a constraint made up for science fiction.
It's literally impossible to reach the speed of light.
I'll explain the length contraction thing with an example.Pick two reference points.
Your place of origin, and the place you're trying to get to.
Say the distance between them is 10 (I'll ignore units for now).
You start using energy to go faster.
If you're pretty far from the speed of light, the distance still looks like 10 from what you can measure, and you can tell that your speed is increasing.
As you get on the other end of the scale, when you're already pretty close to lightspeed, adding more energy doesn't seem to affect the speed you're moving at very much.
It just makes the distance between your point of origin and destination shorter (say 0.0000001 of whatever units we made up).
So, adding energy to "accelerate" will still get you there faster (from your perspective), but your measured speed isn't really increasing significantly (so from the perspective of people in your origin point, you're not adding a lot of energy and not gaining much time).When you're AT lightspeed (you can't get there, your kinetic energy would be inifinite, since you have mass), everything in the direction of travel is at a single point, the one you are at.
So what are you measuring your speed in relation to to go "faster"?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293122</id>
	<title>What is time?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267192740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Time is man-made. It is a product of consciousness and perception. Space-time is utter nonsense. Time is not a dimension of space. It is not tied to space in anyway. It is not a physical property. It is a chronological series of events. It is a measure of rate of change. The only way to alter time is to alter the rate of change in the physical world or the consciousness and perceptions of the mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time is man-made .
It is a product of consciousness and perception .
Space-time is utter nonsense .
Time is not a dimension of space .
It is not tied to space in anyway .
It is not a physical property .
It is a chronological series of events .
It is a measure of rate of change .
The only way to alter time is to alter the rate of change in the physical world or the consciousness and perceptions of the mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time is man-made.
It is a product of consciousness and perception.
Space-time is utter nonsense.
Time is not a dimension of space.
It is not tied to space in anyway.
It is not a physical property.
It is a chronological series of events.
It is a measure of rate of change.
The only way to alter time is to alter the rate of change in the physical world or the consciousness and perceptions of the mind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31294232</id>
	<title>Re:Time travel to the past and Uncle Rico moments.</title>
	<author>mestar</author>
	<datestamp>1267201500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i><br>If space/time travelling at 0 = our perceived passage of time.<br>If space/time travelling at 299,792,458 mph = time stopped<br>Then wouldn't space/time travelling at 599,584,916mph = our perceived passage of time in reverse?<br></i></p><p>No, because at c, the universe from your perspective is already contracted to the length of 0, in other words, you lose one dimension.  In whichever way you were traveling, you are there in 0 seconds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If space/time travelling at 0 = our perceived passage of time.If space/time travelling at 299,792,458 mph = time stoppedThen would n't space/time travelling at 599,584,916mph = our perceived passage of time in reverse ? No , because at c , the universe from your perspective is already contracted to the length of 0 , in other words , you lose one dimension .
In whichever way you were traveling , you are there in 0 seconds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If space/time travelling at 0 = our perceived passage of time.If space/time travelling at 299,792,458 mph = time stoppedThen wouldn't space/time travelling at 599,584,916mph = our perceived passage of time in reverse?No, because at c, the universe from your perspective is already contracted to the length of 0, in other words, you lose one dimension.
In whichever way you were traveling, you are there in 0 seconds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31307870</id>
	<title>Time = Energy</title>
	<author>StarfishOne</author>
	<datestamp>1267387560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to the Russian astrophysicist Nikolai Aleksandrovich Kozyrev, who has done some very interesting research, time is a form of spiraling energy.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai\_Aleksandrovich\_Kozyrev" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai\_Aleksandrovich\_Kozyrev</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Which ties in to torsion physics (Tesla, Schauberger, etc), the zero-point energy field or (do I dare say it? yes!), the aether! **</p><p>CHAPTER 01: THE BREAKTHROUGHS OF DR. N.A. KOZYREV</p><p><a href="http://divinecosmos.com/index.php/start-here/books-free-online/20-the-divine-cosmos/95-the-divine-cosmos-chapter-01-the-breakthroughs-of-dr-na-kozyrev" title="divinecosmos.com">http://divinecosmos.com/index.php/start-here/books-free-online/20-the-divine-cosmos/95-the-divine-cosmos-chapter-01-the-breakthroughs-of-dr-na-kozyrev</a> [divinecosmos.com]<br><a href="http://divinecosmos.com/index.php/start-here/books-free-online/20-the-divine-cosmos/103-the-divine-cosmos-chapter-09-harnessing-torsion-waves-and-consciousness" title="divinecosmos.com">http://divinecosmos.com/index.php/start-here/books-free-online/20-the-divine-cosmos/103-the-divine-cosmos-chapter-09-harnessing-torsion-waves-and-consciousness</a> [divinecosmos.com]</p><p>Even seems to connect to the time-wave theory of Terence McKenna..</p><p>**</p><p>"Concerning the Silvertooth experiment:   The Michelson-Morley experiment, which did not show any translational motion through an aether or other medium of propagation, was later shown to have a fundamental flaw: The standing waves that are reflected back onto a mirror become phase locked on the mirror, and hence to its motion through space. Silvertooth built a standing wave experiment that avoids the phase locking encountered in the Michelson-Morley setup. It uses a configuration similar to the Sagnac experiment, which many years ago did detect motion relative to an aether. Silvertooth's addition was a sensor capable of measuring the spacing between standing wave nodes.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; This spacing is dependent upon the orientation of the apparatus relative to the Earth's motion, and this fact made the Earth's motion measurable. Silvertooth measured the 378 km/s motion of the Earth in this experiment. Some references are: Silvertooth, E.W., "Experimental Detection of the Ether", Speculations in Science and Technology, Vol.10, No.1, page 3 (1987) In that same issue beginning on page 9, is an excellent "Plain English" summary by H. Aspden entitled 'On the Silvertooth Experiment'." [We are heading toward the Constellation Leo.]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the Russian astrophysicist Nikolai Aleksandrovich Kozyrev , who has done some very interesting research , time is a form of spiraling energy.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai \ _Aleksandrovich \ _Kozyrev [ wikipedia.org ] Which ties in to torsion physics ( Tesla , Schauberger , etc ) , the zero-point energy field or ( do I dare say it ?
yes ! ) , the aether !
* * CHAPTER 01 : THE BREAKTHROUGHS OF DR. N.A. KOZYREVhttp : //divinecosmos.com/index.php/start-here/books-free-online/20-the-divine-cosmos/95-the-divine-cosmos-chapter-01-the-breakthroughs-of-dr-na-kozyrev [ divinecosmos.com ] http : //divinecosmos.com/index.php/start-here/books-free-online/20-the-divine-cosmos/103-the-divine-cosmos-chapter-09-harnessing-torsion-waves-and-consciousness [ divinecosmos.com ] Even seems to connect to the time-wave theory of Terence McKenna.. * * " Concerning the Silvertooth experiment : The Michelson-Morley experiment , which did not show any translational motion through an aether or other medium of propagation , was later shown to have a fundamental flaw : The standing waves that are reflected back onto a mirror become phase locked on the mirror , and hence to its motion through space .
Silvertooth built a standing wave experiment that avoids the phase locking encountered in the Michelson-Morley setup .
It uses a configuration similar to the Sagnac experiment , which many years ago did detect motion relative to an aether .
Silvertooth 's addition was a sensor capable of measuring the spacing between standing wave nodes .
    This spacing is dependent upon the orientation of the apparatus relative to the Earth 's motion , and this fact made the Earth 's motion measurable .
Silvertooth measured the 378 km/s motion of the Earth in this experiment .
Some references are : Silvertooth , E.W. , " Experimental Detection of the Ether " , Speculations in Science and Technology , Vol.10 , No.1 , page 3 ( 1987 ) In that same issue beginning on page 9 , is an excellent " Plain English " summary by H. Aspden entitled 'On the Silvertooth Experiment' .
" [ We are heading toward the Constellation Leo .
]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the Russian astrophysicist Nikolai Aleksandrovich Kozyrev, who has done some very interesting research, time is a form of spiraling energy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai\_Aleksandrovich\_Kozyrev [wikipedia.org]Which ties in to torsion physics (Tesla, Schauberger, etc), the zero-point energy field or (do I dare say it?
yes!), the aether!
**CHAPTER 01: THE BREAKTHROUGHS OF DR. N.A. KOZYREVhttp://divinecosmos.com/index.php/start-here/books-free-online/20-the-divine-cosmos/95-the-divine-cosmos-chapter-01-the-breakthroughs-of-dr-na-kozyrev [divinecosmos.com]http://divinecosmos.com/index.php/start-here/books-free-online/20-the-divine-cosmos/103-the-divine-cosmos-chapter-09-harnessing-torsion-waves-and-consciousness [divinecosmos.com]Even seems to connect to the time-wave theory of Terence McKenna..**"Concerning the Silvertooth experiment:   The Michelson-Morley experiment, which did not show any translational motion through an aether or other medium of propagation, was later shown to have a fundamental flaw: The standing waves that are reflected back onto a mirror become phase locked on the mirror, and hence to its motion through space.
Silvertooth built a standing wave experiment that avoids the phase locking encountered in the Michelson-Morley setup.
It uses a configuration similar to the Sagnac experiment, which many years ago did detect motion relative to an aether.
Silvertooth's addition was a sensor capable of measuring the spacing between standing wave nodes.
    This spacing is dependent upon the orientation of the apparatus relative to the Earth's motion, and this fact made the Earth's motion measurable.
Silvertooth measured the 378 km/s motion of the Earth in this experiment.
Some references are: Silvertooth, E.W., "Experimental Detection of the Ether", Speculations in Science and Technology, Vol.10, No.1, page 3 (1987) In that same issue beginning on page 9, is an excellent "Plain English" summary by H. Aspden entitled 'On the Silvertooth Experiment'.
" [We are heading toward the Constellation Leo.
]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291988</id>
	<title>Re:[...]you can't turn an omelet into an egg.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267186440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah yeah, the typical slashdot asperger response, seeing a simple explanation and taking it literally, all while feeling smug and good about himself. "Yeah, that really showed him, and I have my fellow asperger friends to back me up with their moderation! Another friday well spent!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah yeah , the typical slashdot asperger response , seeing a simple explanation and taking it literally , all while feeling smug and good about himself .
" Yeah , that really showed him , and I have my fellow asperger friends to back me up with their moderation !
Another friday well spent !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah yeah, the typical slashdot asperger response, seeing a simple explanation and taking it literally, all while feeling smug and good about himself.
"Yeah, that really showed him, and I have my fellow asperger friends to back me up with their moderation!
Another friday well spent!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292428</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267188480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting idea. What if there's a life form that actually goes backwards in time? Their "irreversible processes" would be something.</p><p>"Chickens come into existence from corpses. They eat eggs and other strange matters through their bottoms, spitting off corns and always ending up as eggs themselves."</p><p>"Corn comes from chickens and other animals' mouth, ending up sucked into the earth by corn-eating vegetables."</p><p>And so on...</p><p>Obviously, it would be impossible to communicate with these life forms since our learning paths would never match.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting idea .
What if there 's a life form that actually goes backwards in time ?
Their " irreversible processes " would be something .
" Chickens come into existence from corpses .
They eat eggs and other strange matters through their bottoms , spitting off corns and always ending up as eggs themselves .
" " Corn comes from chickens and other animals ' mouth , ending up sucked into the earth by corn-eating vegetables .
" And so on...Obviously , it would be impossible to communicate with these life forms since our learning paths would never match .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting idea.
What if there's a life form that actually goes backwards in time?
Their "irreversible processes" would be something.
"Chickens come into existence from corpses.
They eat eggs and other strange matters through their bottoms, spitting off corns and always ending up as eggs themselves.
""Corn comes from chickens and other animals' mouth, ending up sucked into the earth by corn-eating vegetables.
"And so on...Obviously, it would be impossible to communicate with these life forms since our learning paths would never match.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31295646</id>
	<title>Re:In TFA, he basically contradicts evolution</title>
	<author>n dot l</author>
	<datestamp>1267265580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So, if entropy goes up with time, and things become more disorderly, how is it that species and advanced life forms become more orderly?</p></div><p>Organisms become more orderly by harnessing energy. Harnessing energy produces heat. Heat is, basically, entropy. Life is locally very orderly, but, by being so, it introduces so much additional entropy into its environment that entropy\_of( life\_form + environment ) &gt; entropy\_of( environment ).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , if entropy goes up with time , and things become more disorderly , how is it that species and advanced life forms become more orderly ? Organisms become more orderly by harnessing energy .
Harnessing energy produces heat .
Heat is , basically , entropy .
Life is locally very orderly , but , by being so , it introduces so much additional entropy into its environment that entropy \ _of ( life \ _form + environment ) &gt; entropy \ _of ( environment ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, if entropy goes up with time, and things become more disorderly, how is it that species and advanced life forms become more orderly?Organisms become more orderly by harnessing energy.
Harnessing energy produces heat.
Heat is, basically, entropy.
Life is locally very orderly, but, by being so, it introduces so much additional entropy into its environment that entropy\_of( life\_form + environment ) &gt; entropy\_of( environment ).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293620</id>
	<title>Why Would You Want To?</title>
	<author>aplusjimages</author>
	<datestamp>1267196040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There are things that happen, like you turn an egg into an omelet, but you can&rsquo;t turn an omelet into an egg.</p></div><p>Why would you want to? I like the fact that I can poop and that's it. I don't want it working in reverse.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are things that happen , like you turn an egg into an omelet , but you can    t turn an omelet into an egg.Why would you want to ?
I like the fact that I can poop and that 's it .
I do n't want it working in reverse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are things that happen, like you turn an egg into an omelet, but you can’t turn an omelet into an egg.Why would you want to?
I like the fact that I can poop and that's it.
I don't want it working in reverse.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292604</id>
	<title>Re:My head hurts....</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1267189800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The semantics is more an artifact of trying to express something that we have no proper words for because it never happens and we can't exactly imagine what it would be like if it did happen.</p><p>At the subatomic level, everything is reversible with equal probability. If a particle can decay into two others, the two others can join to form the particle just as easily. However, at our scale, making all the bits of egg on the floor come back together and the egg then fly up into your hand only happens if you run a movie backwards. Beyond being nearly infinitely funny to first graders, physicists are lead to wonder why that is. What is different between the scales such that equally likely at the small scale becomes "never happens" at ours.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The semantics is more an artifact of trying to express something that we have no proper words for because it never happens and we ca n't exactly imagine what it would be like if it did happen.At the subatomic level , everything is reversible with equal probability .
If a particle can decay into two others , the two others can join to form the particle just as easily .
However , at our scale , making all the bits of egg on the floor come back together and the egg then fly up into your hand only happens if you run a movie backwards .
Beyond being nearly infinitely funny to first graders , physicists are lead to wonder why that is .
What is different between the scales such that equally likely at the small scale becomes " never happens " at ours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The semantics is more an artifact of trying to express something that we have no proper words for because it never happens and we can't exactly imagine what it would be like if it did happen.At the subatomic level, everything is reversible with equal probability.
If a particle can decay into two others, the two others can join to form the particle just as easily.
However, at our scale, making all the bits of egg on the floor come back together and the egg then fly up into your hand only happens if you run a movie backwards.
Beyond being nearly infinitely funny to first graders, physicists are lead to wonder why that is.
What is different between the scales such that equally likely at the small scale becomes "never happens" at ours.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31295312</id>
	<title>Re:Islamic view of "time"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267302180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, STFU and go drive a plane into a building, or something.   No one cares about what a bunch of camel fuckers thinks about "time".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , STFU and go drive a plane into a building , or something .
No one cares about what a bunch of camel fuckers thinks about " time " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, STFU and go drive a plane into a building, or something.
No one cares about what a bunch of camel fuckers thinks about "time".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31294016</id>
	<title>Re:Timeline</title>
	<author>joebagodonuts</author>
	<datestamp>1267199160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought that was a glitch in the Matrix...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought that was a glitch in the Matrix.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought that was a glitch in the Matrix...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293792</id>
	<title>Re:Time does not exist</title>
	<author>afabbro</author>
	<datestamp>1267197240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is the most ridiculous semantic argument I have ever read.  Saying that "time doesn't exist" is a cop-out for simple minds.</p></div><p>I think Gautama Buddha would be most pleased that you consider his mind simple.  As far as I can determine, the observation that time doesn't exist originates in Buddhist thought.</p><p>More modern references would be <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox\_of\_the\_heap" title="wikipedia.org">the paradox of the heap</a> [wikipedia.org],<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereological\_nihilism" title="wikipedia.org">mereological nihilism</a> [wikipedia.org], etc.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>All you can do is speculate on the nature of time based on your observations (i.e. "The only thing we have is present-moment memories, etc"), attempt to formulate a testable hypothesis, and seek falsifying or confirming evidence for that hypothesis.</p><p>It just so happens that's really difficult to do when every frame of reference you have occurs (or appears to occur) within the very thing you're trying to study.</p></div><p>So yes, as I observed, you can't prove it exists.  Thanks.  Next up: prove I exist.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the most ridiculous semantic argument I have ever read .
Saying that " time does n't exist " is a cop-out for simple minds.I think Gautama Buddha would be most pleased that you consider his mind simple .
As far as I can determine , the observation that time does n't exist originates in Buddhist thought.More modern references would be the paradox of the heap [ wikipedia.org ] ,mereological nihilism [ wikipedia.org ] , etc.All you can do is speculate on the nature of time based on your observations ( i.e .
" The only thing we have is present-moment memories , etc " ) , attempt to formulate a testable hypothesis , and seek falsifying or confirming evidence for that hypothesis.It just so happens that 's really difficult to do when every frame of reference you have occurs ( or appears to occur ) within the very thing you 're trying to study.So yes , as I observed , you ca n't prove it exists .
Thanks. Next up : prove I exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the most ridiculous semantic argument I have ever read.
Saying that "time doesn't exist" is a cop-out for simple minds.I think Gautama Buddha would be most pleased that you consider his mind simple.
As far as I can determine, the observation that time doesn't exist originates in Buddhist thought.More modern references would be the paradox of the heap [wikipedia.org],mereological nihilism [wikipedia.org], etc.All you can do is speculate on the nature of time based on your observations (i.e.
"The only thing we have is present-moment memories, etc"), attempt to formulate a testable hypothesis, and seek falsifying or confirming evidence for that hypothesis.It just so happens that's really difficult to do when every frame of reference you have occurs (or appears to occur) within the very thing you're trying to study.So yes, as I observed, you can't prove it exists.
Thanks.  Next up: prove I exist.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31305282</id>
	<title>Re:Time does not exist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267369380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're welcome to disbelieve in the notion of time using the "prove me wrong that it doesn't exist" argument.  Unfortunately, the argument itself is a logical fallacy - nobody can prove a negative, but we can falsify positive claims, thus please - make a positive claim that can be falsified.  In other words, provided that your are correct, that time does not exist, what experiment can we conduct that shows that time does not exist?</p><p>In any case, you can continue to disbelieve in this notion of time, however, one can get results from the scientific method even if one disbelieves it.  Thus, you are welcome to continue to use any discoveries made by science, all the while disbelieving it.  It does appear that this notion of time appears to affect everything, at least experimentally, but if your "no time hypothesis" has a better explanation for all of sciences observations, please provide them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're welcome to disbelieve in the notion of time using the " prove me wrong that it does n't exist " argument .
Unfortunately , the argument itself is a logical fallacy - nobody can prove a negative , but we can falsify positive claims , thus please - make a positive claim that can be falsified .
In other words , provided that your are correct , that time does not exist , what experiment can we conduct that shows that time does not exist ? In any case , you can continue to disbelieve in this notion of time , however , one can get results from the scientific method even if one disbelieves it .
Thus , you are welcome to continue to use any discoveries made by science , all the while disbelieving it .
It does appear that this notion of time appears to affect everything , at least experimentally , but if your " no time hypothesis " has a better explanation for all of sciences observations , please provide them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're welcome to disbelieve in the notion of time using the "prove me wrong that it doesn't exist" argument.
Unfortunately, the argument itself is a logical fallacy - nobody can prove a negative, but we can falsify positive claims, thus please - make a positive claim that can be falsified.
In other words, provided that your are correct, that time does not exist, what experiment can we conduct that shows that time does not exist?In any case, you can continue to disbelieve in this notion of time, however, one can get results from the scientific method even if one disbelieves it.
Thus, you are welcome to continue to use any discoveries made by science, all the while disbelieving it.
It does appear that this notion of time appears to affect everything, at least experimentally, but if your "no time hypothesis" has a better explanation for all of sciences observations, please provide them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291534</id>
	<title>Timeline</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267183860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We remember the past but we don&rsquo;t remember the future.</p></div><p>In a way you <i>can</i> "remember" future, it's called deja vu. The few times I've had it, everything matched perfectly what I already knew. I knew what was going to happen and what there was around me and what was different than how it usually is, ie. what items were in different location or not there. Like most people, I attributed it to a past dream. I am certain it didn't happen before in reality nor was it some anomaly from memory.</p><p>This leads me to believe there is a timeline. Everything happening all the time has a position and state on that timeline. We try to explain time with physics and our current knowledge. This is somewhat related to physics - if you're moving faster, you're aging slower (your time is going slower). This is true on airplanes and true when moving at light speed. If you moved fast enough, everyone on Earth could age 70 years while you only aged a few minutes.</p><p>But this only works towards future. Nevertheless, if it works towards future it must also work towards past. I think the plain movement speed isn't what's causing the differences in passing time, but it triggers something else. We as humans have (admittedly bad) memory of everything that has happened in the past. There is our own state and time. Why there couldn't be global state and time, a timeline? A timeline you could warp within, even if you did exactly the same things again.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We remember the past but we don    t remember the future.In a way you can " remember " future , it 's called deja vu .
The few times I 've had it , everything matched perfectly what I already knew .
I knew what was going to happen and what there was around me and what was different than how it usually is , ie .
what items were in different location or not there .
Like most people , I attributed it to a past dream .
I am certain it did n't happen before in reality nor was it some anomaly from memory.This leads me to believe there is a timeline .
Everything happening all the time has a position and state on that timeline .
We try to explain time with physics and our current knowledge .
This is somewhat related to physics - if you 're moving faster , you 're aging slower ( your time is going slower ) .
This is true on airplanes and true when moving at light speed .
If you moved fast enough , everyone on Earth could age 70 years while you only aged a few minutes.But this only works towards future .
Nevertheless , if it works towards future it must also work towards past .
I think the plain movement speed is n't what 's causing the differences in passing time , but it triggers something else .
We as humans have ( admittedly bad ) memory of everything that has happened in the past .
There is our own state and time .
Why there could n't be global state and time , a timeline ?
A timeline you could warp within , even if you did exactly the same things again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We remember the past but we don’t remember the future.In a way you can "remember" future, it's called deja vu.
The few times I've had it, everything matched perfectly what I already knew.
I knew what was going to happen and what there was around me and what was different than how it usually is, ie.
what items were in different location or not there.
Like most people, I attributed it to a past dream.
I am certain it didn't happen before in reality nor was it some anomaly from memory.This leads me to believe there is a timeline.
Everything happening all the time has a position and state on that timeline.
We try to explain time with physics and our current knowledge.
This is somewhat related to physics - if you're moving faster, you're aging slower (your time is going slower).
This is true on airplanes and true when moving at light speed.
If you moved fast enough, everyone on Earth could age 70 years while you only aged a few minutes.But this only works towards future.
Nevertheless, if it works towards future it must also work towards past.
I think the plain movement speed isn't what's causing the differences in passing time, but it triggers something else.
We as humans have (admittedly bad) memory of everything that has happened in the past.
There is our own state and time.
Why there couldn't be global state and time, a timeline?
A timeline you could warp within, even if you did exactly the same things again.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291728</id>
	<title>Time?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267184940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>A physicist I'm not, nor mathematician,  but 'TIME is CHANGE' in my book. No change- no time.  What else can you measure it against?</htmltext>
<tokenext>A physicist I 'm not , nor mathematician , but 'TIME is CHANGE ' in my book .
No change- no time .
What else can you measure it against ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A physicist I'm not, nor mathematician,  but 'TIME is CHANGE' in my book.
No change- no time.
What else can you measure it against?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31294690</id>
	<title>Re:Timeline</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267206420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had Deja Vu happen to me a few times.</p><p>Examples include seeing a different wash basin in the bathroom. This happened in a dream and I distinctly remembered that part of the dream.</p><p>A few years later my parents renovated the house and the wash basin was changed. I looked at it, and it seemed familiar. That's when it hit me that I saw that in a dream.</p><p>Another time, I was working part time in a factory during my school holidays.</p><p>I was doing packing and I saw the supervisor work down the production line to get something. I don't know how, or why, but I knew what was going to happen for the next few secs - as in I have seen the whole "scene" before. It's like seeing the first frame of a clip, and knowing what's going to happen for the next 3 secs in the clip. Maybe it was in another dream I had but had conciously forgotten. It definatly was not "after the fact" when I had the thought that I had seen it before.</p><p>There have been other minor incidents as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had Deja Vu happen to me a few times.Examples include seeing a different wash basin in the bathroom .
This happened in a dream and I distinctly remembered that part of the dream.A few years later my parents renovated the house and the wash basin was changed .
I looked at it , and it seemed familiar .
That 's when it hit me that I saw that in a dream.Another time , I was working part time in a factory during my school holidays.I was doing packing and I saw the supervisor work down the production line to get something .
I do n't know how , or why , but I knew what was going to happen for the next few secs - as in I have seen the whole " scene " before .
It 's like seeing the first frame of a clip , and knowing what 's going to happen for the next 3 secs in the clip .
Maybe it was in another dream I had but had conciously forgotten .
It definatly was not " after the fact " when I had the thought that I had seen it before.There have been other minor incidents as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had Deja Vu happen to me a few times.Examples include seeing a different wash basin in the bathroom.
This happened in a dream and I distinctly remembered that part of the dream.A few years later my parents renovated the house and the wash basin was changed.
I looked at it, and it seemed familiar.
That's when it hit me that I saw that in a dream.Another time, I was working part time in a factory during my school holidays.I was doing packing and I saw the supervisor work down the production line to get something.
I don't know how, or why, but I knew what was going to happen for the next few secs - as in I have seen the whole "scene" before.
It's like seeing the first frame of a clip, and knowing what's going to happen for the next 3 secs in the clip.
Maybe it was in another dream I had but had conciously forgotten.
It definatly was not "after the fact" when I had the thought that I had seen it before.There have been other minor incidents as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293244</id>
	<title>Time</title>
	<author>Arker</author>
	<datestamp>1267193520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Time is just natures way of keeping everything from happening at once.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Time is just natures way of keeping everything from happening at once .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time is just natures way of keeping everything from happening at once.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292264</id>
	<title>Finding the Present</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267187700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To perceive truly is to be aware of all reality through the awareness of your own.  But for this no illusions can rise to meet your sight, for reality leaves no room for any error.  This means that you perceive a brother only as you see him <i>now</i>.  His past has no reality in the present, so you cannot see it.  Your past reactions to him are also not there, and if it is to them that you react, you see but an image of him that you made and cherish instead of him.  In your questioning of illusions, ask yourself if it is really sane to perceive what was as now.  If you remember the past as you look upon your brother, you will be unable to perceive the reality that is now.</p><p>You consider it "natural" to use your past experience as the reference point from which to judge the present.  Yet this is <i>un-natural</i>, because it is delusional.  When you have learned to look on everyone with no reference at all to the past, either his or yours as you perceived it, you will be able to learn from what you see <i>now</i>.  For the past can cast no shadow to darken the present, <i>unless you are afraid of light</i>.  And only if you are would choose to bring darkness with you, and by holding it in your mind, see it as a dark cloud that shrouds your brothers and conceals their reality from your sight.</p><p>--ACIM</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To perceive truly is to be aware of all reality through the awareness of your own .
But for this no illusions can rise to meet your sight , for reality leaves no room for any error .
This means that you perceive a brother only as you see him now .
His past has no reality in the present , so you can not see it .
Your past reactions to him are also not there , and if it is to them that you react , you see but an image of him that you made and cherish instead of him .
In your questioning of illusions , ask yourself if it is really sane to perceive what was as now .
If you remember the past as you look upon your brother , you will be unable to perceive the reality that is now.You consider it " natural " to use your past experience as the reference point from which to judge the present .
Yet this is un-natural , because it is delusional .
When you have learned to look on everyone with no reference at all to the past , either his or yours as you perceived it , you will be able to learn from what you see now .
For the past can cast no shadow to darken the present , unless you are afraid of light .
And only if you are would choose to bring darkness with you , and by holding it in your mind , see it as a dark cloud that shrouds your brothers and conceals their reality from your sight.--ACIM</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To perceive truly is to be aware of all reality through the awareness of your own.
But for this no illusions can rise to meet your sight, for reality leaves no room for any error.
This means that you perceive a brother only as you see him now.
His past has no reality in the present, so you cannot see it.
Your past reactions to him are also not there, and if it is to them that you react, you see but an image of him that you made and cherish instead of him.
In your questioning of illusions, ask yourself if it is really sane to perceive what was as now.
If you remember the past as you look upon your brother, you will be unable to perceive the reality that is now.You consider it "natural" to use your past experience as the reference point from which to judge the present.
Yet this is un-natural, because it is delusional.
When you have learned to look on everyone with no reference at all to the past, either his or yours as you perceived it, you will be able to learn from what you see now.
For the past can cast no shadow to darken the present, unless you are afraid of light.
And only if you are would choose to bring darkness with you, and by holding it in your mind, see it as a dark cloud that shrouds your brothers and conceals their reality from your sight.--ACIM</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31295188</id>
	<title>3D-sphere in a 4D-space</title>
	<author>Frans Faase</author>
	<datestamp>1267213740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Interesting how he put a quiet universe in the middle with two universes coming out in two directions. Some years ago, I got this idea that the arrow of time is different in each location of the universe. Or in other words our 3-dimensional world is actually an expanding 3D-'sphere' in a 4D-space. Of course, I have no idea if this 'model' fits the observations in any way. I just thought it to be an interesting idea. It also means that the time is not going in two directions but in an infinite number of directions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting how he put a quiet universe in the middle with two universes coming out in two directions .
Some years ago , I got this idea that the arrow of time is different in each location of the universe .
Or in other words our 3-dimensional world is actually an expanding 3D-'sphere ' in a 4D-space .
Of course , I have no idea if this 'model ' fits the observations in any way .
I just thought it to be an interesting idea .
It also means that the time is not going in two directions but in an infinite number of directions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting how he put a quiet universe in the middle with two universes coming out in two directions.
Some years ago, I got this idea that the arrow of time is different in each location of the universe.
Or in other words our 3-dimensional world is actually an expanding 3D-'sphere' in a 4D-space.
Of course, I have no idea if this 'model' fits the observations in any way.
I just thought it to be an interesting idea.
It also means that the time is not going in two directions but in an infinite number of directions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293346</id>
	<title>Re:Timeline</title>
	<author>ffflala</author>
	<datestamp>1267194240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have there really been medical studies to support the "brain glitch" theory of deja vu?</p><p>I've never seen anything to indicate that this explanation is anything more than conjecture.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have there really been medical studies to support the " brain glitch " theory of deja vu ? I 've never seen anything to indicate that this explanation is anything more than conjecture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have there really been medical studies to support the "brain glitch" theory of deja vu?I've never seen anything to indicate that this explanation is anything more than conjecture.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292218</id>
	<title>Like an arrow...</title>
	<author>irp</author>
	<datestamp>1267187460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So let me see, if I understand this correctly:<br>Time has the ballistic and aerodynamic properties of a medieval wooden projectile?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So let me see , if I understand this correctly : Time has the ballistic and aerodynamic properties of a medieval wooden projectile ?
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So let me see, if I understand this correctly:Time has the ballistic and aerodynamic properties of a medieval wooden projectile?
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291644</id>
	<title>Sean Carroll's "Real Rules for Time Travelers"</title>
	<author>Bobtree</author>
	<datestamp>1267184520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://discovermagazine.com/2010/mar/02-the-real-rules-for-time-travelers/article\_print" title="discovermagazine.com">http://discovermagazine.com/2010/mar/02-the-real-rules-for-time-travelers/article\_print</a> [discovermagazine.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //discovermagazine.com/2010/mar/02-the-real-rules-for-time-travelers/article \ _print [ discovermagazine.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://discovermagazine.com/2010/mar/02-the-real-rules-for-time-travelers/article\_print [discovermagazine.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31304692</id>
	<title>Re:Time does not exist</title>
	<author>PiSkyHi</author>
	<datestamp>1267363320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are right, except you need to replace "wild speculation and fantasy" with "relative certainty" just to bring it down to what is practical well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are right , except you need to replace " wild speculation and fantasy " with " relative certainty " just to bring it down to what is practical well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are right, except you need to replace "wild speculation and fantasy" with "relative certainty" just to bring it down to what is practical well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292724</id>
	<title>Re:Time does not exist</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1267190340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're just moving the question. Why do we have memories of a glass slipping from our hands and smashing on the floor, but we never have any memories of finding glass shards and a puddle on the floor and having them spontaneously come together and jump into our hand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're just moving the question .
Why do we have memories of a glass slipping from our hands and smashing on the floor , but we never have any memories of finding glass shards and a puddle on the floor and having them spontaneously come together and jump into our hand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're just moving the question.
Why do we have memories of a glass slipping from our hands and smashing on the floor, but we never have any memories of finding glass shards and a puddle on the floor and having them spontaneously come together and jump into our hand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291890</id>
	<title>Re:Timeline</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267185900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I knew Deja Vu is just the movement of memory directly to long-term, rather than residing in short-term first, but is it really a minor seizure? Because that shit happens to me a couple times a year. I should get checked out if it's seizing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I knew Deja Vu is just the movement of memory directly to long-term , rather than residing in short-term first , but is it really a minor seizure ?
Because that shit happens to me a couple times a year .
I should get checked out if it 's seizing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I knew Deja Vu is just the movement of memory directly to long-term, rather than residing in short-term first, but is it really a minor seizure?
Because that shit happens to me a couple times a year.
I should get checked out if it's seizing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291928</id>
	<title>Re:Time?</title>
	<author>Toonol</author>
	<datestamp>1267186080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think that is part of the issue, but there's more problems:<br> <br>

Change is measured over time.  An accelerating change means that more change is happening per time; that means that time is somehow independent of change.<br> <br>

Also... change happens go forward through time, going backward through time.  If you see two atoms collide, the process works forward and backward... but time only seems to go forward.  Why does time seem to only exist in one direction?<br> <br>

It seems to tie heavily into thermodynamics (and, hence, evolution).  Individual particles behave almost independently of time, but large systems seem to statistically indicate a strong temporal directionality.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that is part of the issue , but there 's more problems : Change is measured over time .
An accelerating change means that more change is happening per time ; that means that time is somehow independent of change .
Also... change happens go forward through time , going backward through time .
If you see two atoms collide , the process works forward and backward... but time only seems to go forward .
Why does time seem to only exist in one direction ?
It seems to tie heavily into thermodynamics ( and , hence , evolution ) .
Individual particles behave almost independently of time , but large systems seem to statistically indicate a strong temporal directionality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that is part of the issue, but there's more problems: 

Change is measured over time.
An accelerating change means that more change is happening per time; that means that time is somehow independent of change.
Also... change happens go forward through time, going backward through time.
If you see two atoms collide, the process works forward and backward... but time only seems to go forward.
Why does time seem to only exist in one direction?
It seems to tie heavily into thermodynamics (and, hence, evolution).
Individual particles behave almost independently of time, but large systems seem to statistically indicate a strong temporal directionality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31449612</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1268389560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Simple. It means that they found a way around the uncertainty principle. You know, the one that is the reason there are only <em>probabilities</em> of finding a particle somewhere. Never guarantees. And only trough measurement you know if there actually is one there. (Wich leads to tons of weird effects.)</p><p>I don&rsquo;t think you can find deterministic quantum mechanics. And there is one problem with a &ldquo;static&rdquo; universe: Where does it come from?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simple .
It means that they found a way around the uncertainty principle .
You know , the one that is the reason there are only probabilities of finding a particle somewhere .
Never guarantees .
And only trough measurement you know if there actually is one there .
( Wich leads to tons of weird effects .
) I don    t think you can find deterministic quantum mechanics .
And there is one problem with a    static    universe : Where does it come from ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simple.
It means that they found a way around the uncertainty principle.
You know, the one that is the reason there are only probabilities of finding a particle somewhere.
Never guarantees.
And only trough measurement you know if there actually is one there.
(Wich leads to tons of weird effects.
)I don’t think you can find deterministic quantum mechanics.
And there is one problem with a “static” universe: Where does it come from?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31295180</id>
	<title>remembering the future</title>
	<author>nido</author>
	<datestamp>1267213740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a copy of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Future-Memory-P-M-H-Atwater/" title="amazon.com">Future Memory</a> [amazon.com], which posits that events can be pre-experienced (mostly non-volitionally, similar to a 'near death experience').</p><p>This does not imply that the future is ordained. By knowing what's going to happen in advance, we have the ability to choose a better outcome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a copy of Future Memory [ amazon.com ] , which posits that events can be pre-experienced ( mostly non-volitionally , similar to a 'near death experience ' ) .This does not imply that the future is ordained .
By knowing what 's going to happen in advance , we have the ability to choose a better outcome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a copy of Future Memory [amazon.com], which posits that events can be pre-experienced (mostly non-volitionally, similar to a 'near death experience').This does not imply that the future is ordained.
By knowing what's going to happen in advance, we have the ability to choose a better outcome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31295706</id>
	<title>Multilinear time and modal realism</title>
	<author>Pfhorrest</author>
	<datestamp>1267267080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My pet theory is that time is an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order\_theory" title="wikipedia.org">ordering</a> [wikipedia.org] on the set of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possible\_world" title="wikipedia.org">possible worlds</a> [wikipedia.org] (the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase\_space" title="wikipedia.org">phase space</a> [wikipedia.org] of the universe), from less entropic to more entropic. That is, for a given possible world, any of its "nearest neighbors" (those possible worlds differing from it by the smallest possible amount, one bit) which are less entropic are chronologically prior to that possible world, and any "nearest neighbors" which are more entropic are chronologically posterior to it. And likewise, any world prior to a prior world is itself prior to the initial world under consideration, and any world posterior to a posterior world is itself posterior, such transitivity being the nature of an ordering relationship.</p><p>Any possible world which is neither prior or posterior to a given world is not a part of that world's timeline, though timelines may have possible worlds in common (much like how, if you are neither an ancestor nor a descendent of mine, you are not a part of my genealogical lineage, but my lineage and your lineage can share a common ancestor). Since there are, practically by definition, more high-entropy possible worlds than low-entropy possible worlds, a given possible world will typically have fewer possible pasts than possible futures, and thus timelines will tend to converge in the past and diverge in the future.</p><p>The reason we perceive time as moving from the past to the future (from less to more entropic states) is that any process of acquiring, processing, and storing information about the world necessarily consumes energy (if nothing else, it discharges the energy storing the information, though that energy may then be replenished from elsewhere), that energy doing the work of stimulating whatever sensors are being used to acquire this information, thus reducing the amount of <a href="Thermodynamic\_free\_energy" title="slashdot.org">usable energy</a> [slashdot.org] (but not total energy) in the universe; that is, reducing the amount of useful work that can be done in the universe; that is, increasing the amount of entropy in the universe.</p><p>In order words, the process of perception <em>creates</em> entropy (though other things create it as well), so we necessarily perceive time as moving toward more entropic states. To put it another way: we can only remember lower-entropy states of the universe, since by acquiring memory of those states we increased the subsequent entropy of the universe. When we model these memories, we observe the pattern of entropy increasing in later memories, and in turn we anticipate, generally correctly, that later states will be higher entropy. Thus our mental model of time acquires its directionality.</p><p>Thoughts along these lines, and attempts to integrate relativistic elements of time into this model, have previously lead me to ideas similar to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik\_Verlinde" title="wikipedia.org">Erik Verlinde</a> [wikipedia.org]'s recent model of  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity\_as\_an\_entropic\_force" title="wikipedia.org">gravity as an entropic force</a> [wikipedia.org], though not being a physicist by profession my ideas were far less developed and rigorous than his. I'm watching the developments in that area closely, hoping to see someone develop a more rigorous presentation of something like the above out of it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My pet theory is that time is an ordering [ wikipedia.org ] on the set of possible worlds [ wikipedia.org ] ( the phase space [ wikipedia.org ] of the universe ) , from less entropic to more entropic .
That is , for a given possible world , any of its " nearest neighbors " ( those possible worlds differing from it by the smallest possible amount , one bit ) which are less entropic are chronologically prior to that possible world , and any " nearest neighbors " which are more entropic are chronologically posterior to it .
And likewise , any world prior to a prior world is itself prior to the initial world under consideration , and any world posterior to a posterior world is itself posterior , such transitivity being the nature of an ordering relationship.Any possible world which is neither prior or posterior to a given world is not a part of that world 's timeline , though timelines may have possible worlds in common ( much like how , if you are neither an ancestor nor a descendent of mine , you are not a part of my genealogical lineage , but my lineage and your lineage can share a common ancestor ) .
Since there are , practically by definition , more high-entropy possible worlds than low-entropy possible worlds , a given possible world will typically have fewer possible pasts than possible futures , and thus timelines will tend to converge in the past and diverge in the future.The reason we perceive time as moving from the past to the future ( from less to more entropic states ) is that any process of acquiring , processing , and storing information about the world necessarily consumes energy ( if nothing else , it discharges the energy storing the information , though that energy may then be replenished from elsewhere ) , that energy doing the work of stimulating whatever sensors are being used to acquire this information , thus reducing the amount of usable energy [ slashdot.org ] ( but not total energy ) in the universe ; that is , reducing the amount of useful work that can be done in the universe ; that is , increasing the amount of entropy in the universe.In order words , the process of perception creates entropy ( though other things create it as well ) , so we necessarily perceive time as moving toward more entropic states .
To put it another way : we can only remember lower-entropy states of the universe , since by acquiring memory of those states we increased the subsequent entropy of the universe .
When we model these memories , we observe the pattern of entropy increasing in later memories , and in turn we anticipate , generally correctly , that later states will be higher entropy .
Thus our mental model of time acquires its directionality.Thoughts along these lines , and attempts to integrate relativistic elements of time into this model , have previously lead me to ideas similar to Erik Verlinde [ wikipedia.org ] 's recent model of gravity as an entropic force [ wikipedia.org ] , though not being a physicist by profession my ideas were far less developed and rigorous than his .
I 'm watching the developments in that area closely , hoping to see someone develop a more rigorous presentation of something like the above out of it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My pet theory is that time is an ordering [wikipedia.org] on the set of possible worlds [wikipedia.org] (the phase space [wikipedia.org] of the universe), from less entropic to more entropic.
That is, for a given possible world, any of its "nearest neighbors" (those possible worlds differing from it by the smallest possible amount, one bit) which are less entropic are chronologically prior to that possible world, and any "nearest neighbors" which are more entropic are chronologically posterior to it.
And likewise, any world prior to a prior world is itself prior to the initial world under consideration, and any world posterior to a posterior world is itself posterior, such transitivity being the nature of an ordering relationship.Any possible world which is neither prior or posterior to a given world is not a part of that world's timeline, though timelines may have possible worlds in common (much like how, if you are neither an ancestor nor a descendent of mine, you are not a part of my genealogical lineage, but my lineage and your lineage can share a common ancestor).
Since there are, practically by definition, more high-entropy possible worlds than low-entropy possible worlds, a given possible world will typically have fewer possible pasts than possible futures, and thus timelines will tend to converge in the past and diverge in the future.The reason we perceive time as moving from the past to the future (from less to more entropic states) is that any process of acquiring, processing, and storing information about the world necessarily consumes energy (if nothing else, it discharges the energy storing the information, though that energy may then be replenished from elsewhere), that energy doing the work of stimulating whatever sensors are being used to acquire this information, thus reducing the amount of usable energy [slashdot.org] (but not total energy) in the universe; that is, reducing the amount of useful work that can be done in the universe; that is, increasing the amount of entropy in the universe.In order words, the process of perception creates entropy (though other things create it as well), so we necessarily perceive time as moving toward more entropic states.
To put it another way: we can only remember lower-entropy states of the universe, since by acquiring memory of those states we increased the subsequent entropy of the universe.
When we model these memories, we observe the pattern of entropy increasing in later memories, and in turn we anticipate, generally correctly, that later states will be higher entropy.
Thus our mental model of time acquires its directionality.Thoughts along these lines, and attempts to integrate relativistic elements of time into this model, have previously lead me to ideas similar to Erik Verlinde [wikipedia.org]'s recent model of  gravity as an entropic force [wikipedia.org], though not being a physicist by profession my ideas were far less developed and rigorous than his.
I'm watching the developments in that area closely, hoping to see someone develop a more rigorous presentation of something like the above out of it...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31299564</id>
	<title>Not much there.</title>
	<author>mindstrm</author>
	<datestamp>1267264440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not discrediting the physicist at all - but the analogies and abstractions used to explain this to a reporter really don't add anything or mean much to anyone, other than to make people think of wild ideas that really have nothing to do with the idea itself.</p><p>Fluff piece, in other words.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not discrediting the physicist at all - but the analogies and abstractions used to explain this to a reporter really do n't add anything or mean much to anyone , other than to make people think of wild ideas that really have nothing to do with the idea itself.Fluff piece , in other words .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not discrediting the physicist at all - but the analogies and abstractions used to explain this to a reporter really don't add anything or mean much to anyone, other than to make people think of wild ideas that really have nothing to do with the idea itself.Fluff piece, in other words.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31303230</id>
	<title>Re:Timeline</title>
	<author>mindstrm</author>
	<datestamp>1267297860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Happens between me and a close friend all the time.   We'll often solve complex systems issues with identical troubleshooting procedures without even completing sentences....<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.we think the same way.</p><p>People can predict what other people are going to say because what is being said generally has context, meaning, and a limited number of likely ways to express itself.</p><p>Further, your brain is already listening and expecting certain words to come next...... possibly more than one scenario.   You will remember the one that actually happens, and forget the rest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Happens between me and a close friend all the time .
We 'll often solve complex systems issues with identical troubleshooting procedures without even completing sentences.... .we think the same way.People can predict what other people are going to say because what is being said generally has context , meaning , and a limited number of likely ways to express itself.Further , your brain is already listening and expecting certain words to come next...... possibly more than one scenario .
You will remember the one that actually happens , and forget the rest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Happens between me and a close friend all the time.
We'll often solve complex systems issues with identical troubleshooting procedures without even completing sentences.... .we think the same way.People can predict what other people are going to say because what is being said generally has context, meaning, and a limited number of likely ways to express itself.Further, your brain is already listening and expecting certain words to come next...... possibly more than one scenario.
You will remember the one that actually happens, and forget the rest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31299346</id>
	<title>Re:Time does not exist</title>
	<author>Gerafix</author>
	<datestamp>1267262820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ah yes, the ol' Time Doesn't Exist Argument. "I'm sorry your Honour, I couldn't have killed that man because he never was alive in the first place because even if he was alive it was in the past which doesn't exist therefore he doesn't exist and thus I could never have killed him in the first place."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah yes , the ol ' Time Does n't Exist Argument .
" I 'm sorry your Honour , I could n't have killed that man because he never was alive in the first place because even if he was alive it was in the past which does n't exist therefore he does n't exist and thus I could never have killed him in the first place .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah yes, the ol' Time Doesn't Exist Argument.
"I'm sorry your Honour, I couldn't have killed that man because he never was alive in the first place because even if he was alive it was in the past which doesn't exist therefore he doesn't exist and thus I could never have killed him in the first place.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292384</id>
	<title>Re:Timeline</title>
	<author>Tomfrh</author>
	<datestamp>1267188300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I know exactly what someone is going to say, and then they say it</i></p><p>That happens to everyone occasionally. It doesn't mean you're psychic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know exactly what someone is going to say , and then they say itThat happens to everyone occasionally .
It does n't mean you 're psychic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know exactly what someone is going to say, and then they say itThat happens to everyone occasionally.
It doesn't mean you're psychic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31294698</id>
	<title>Frame dragging. slow news day.</title>
	<author>PDX</author>
	<datestamp>1267206600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If black holes are entropy producers. Then we establish that the universe had more order in the past then it does now. If time is the accumulation of entropy then a place without entropy is a place without time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If black holes are entropy producers .
Then we establish that the universe had more order in the past then it does now .
If time is the accumulation of entropy then a place without entropy is a place without time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If black holes are entropy producers.
Then we establish that the universe had more order in the past then it does now.
If time is the accumulation of entropy then a place without entropy is a place without time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31449656</id>
	<title>Re:Time Travel</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1268390220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We don&lsquo;t, you insensitive clod!</p><p>Sincerely yours,<br>the Recording Industry Association of America</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We don    t , you insensitive clod ! Sincerely yours,the Recording Industry Association of America</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We don‘t, you insensitive clod!Sincerely yours,the Recording Industry Association of America</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291766</id>
	<title>Time Travel</title>
	<author>Citizen of Earth</author>
	<datestamp>1267185120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hello.  I am a time traveler.  Be not afraid.  I come from the past and I travel into the future at a rate of one second per second.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hello .
I am a time traveler .
Be not afraid .
I come from the past and I travel into the future at a rate of one second per second .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hello.
I am a time traveler.
Be not afraid.
I come from the past and I travel into the future at a rate of one second per second.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292572</id>
	<title>The speed of light is our understanding of time</title>
	<author>BlackBloq</author>
	<datestamp>1267189500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sure there are other universes that are tuned to other frequency's and they would see time as faster or slower because whatever energy they can "see" will be their speed of "light".
They could have smaller particles as atoms or larger.

Honestly I think time is directly a function of the rate at which our universe is tuned. Our matter is "vibrating" with universe energy(Radiated with light etc).We exist because we can capture energy. And the passage of time can be explained by the laws of entropy.


So to summarize the speed of light is our understanding of time.

Hawking for a while thought we would reverse at the end of the expansion of matter in the universe; "And be crushed like spaghetti". Kinda funny really!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure there are other universes that are tuned to other frequency 's and they would see time as faster or slower because whatever energy they can " see " will be their speed of " light " .
They could have smaller particles as atoms or larger .
Honestly I think time is directly a function of the rate at which our universe is tuned .
Our matter is " vibrating " with universe energy ( Radiated with light etc ) .We exist because we can capture energy .
And the passage of time can be explained by the laws of entropy .
So to summarize the speed of light is our understanding of time .
Hawking for a while thought we would reverse at the end of the expansion of matter in the universe ; " And be crushed like spaghetti " .
Kinda funny really !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure there are other universes that are tuned to other frequency's and they would see time as faster or slower because whatever energy they can "see" will be their speed of "light".
They could have smaller particles as atoms or larger.
Honestly I think time is directly a function of the rate at which our universe is tuned.
Our matter is "vibrating" with universe energy(Radiated with light etc).We exist because we can capture energy.
And the passage of time can be explained by the laws of entropy.
So to summarize the speed of light is our understanding of time.
Hawking for a while thought we would reverse at the end of the expansion of matter in the universe; "And be crushed like spaghetti".
Kinda funny really!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291950</id>
	<title>Re:What Is Time?</title>
	<author>BradleyUffner</author>
	<datestamp>1267186140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Time is an artificial construct of the Human mind that allows us to mark our pitiful existence in an uncaring universe.</p></div></blockquote><p>I tend to agree with you, but it brings up the question of why the effects of time are different on an observer in motion compared to one at rest.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Time is an artificial construct of the Human mind that allows us to mark our pitiful existence in an uncaring universe.I tend to agree with you , but it brings up the question of why the effects of time are different on an observer in motion compared to one at rest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time is an artificial construct of the Human mind that allows us to mark our pitiful existence in an uncaring universe.I tend to agree with you, but it brings up the question of why the effects of time are different on an observer in motion compared to one at rest.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293974</id>
	<title>Re:Time does not exist</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1267198800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Heh....simple proof:<br> <br>
1) I know everything.<br>
2) I know that time exists.<br>
3) Therefore, time exists.<br> <br>
You may say this is silly, but you cannot prove number 1 or number 2 to be false.  The truth is you can't actually prove anything, you always have to start with some postulates, which is why you can't prove that the world exists either.  All the same, you'd be better off acting as if the world actually does exist than acting as if it doesn't.<br> <br>
For my next proof, I will prove that afabbro is dumb.  Can you guess how I'll do it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Heh....simple proof : 1 ) I know everything .
2 ) I know that time exists .
3 ) Therefore , time exists .
You may say this is silly , but you can not prove number 1 or number 2 to be false .
The truth is you ca n't actually prove anything , you always have to start with some postulates , which is why you ca n't prove that the world exists either .
All the same , you 'd be better off acting as if the world actually does exist than acting as if it does n't .
For my next proof , I will prove that afabbro is dumb .
Can you guess how I 'll do it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heh....simple proof: 
1) I know everything.
2) I know that time exists.
3) Therefore, time exists.
You may say this is silly, but you cannot prove number 1 or number 2 to be false.
The truth is you can't actually prove anything, you always have to start with some postulates, which is why you can't prove that the world exists either.
All the same, you'd be better off acting as if the world actually does exist than acting as if it doesn't.
For my next proof, I will prove that afabbro is dumb.
Can you guess how I'll do it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292310</id>
	<title>Origins of time and inertia video</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267187820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>A far out yet compelling video on time and inertia can be found at <a href="http://www.keithclemens.org/" title="keithclemens.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.keithclemens.org/</a> [keithclemens.org] . Very reminiscent of Einstein style thought experiments, such as riding a beam of light.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A far out yet compelling video on time and inertia can be found at http : //www.keithclemens.org/ [ keithclemens.org ] .
Very reminiscent of Einstein style thought experiments , such as riding a beam of light .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A far out yet compelling video on time and inertia can be found at http://www.keithclemens.org/ [keithclemens.org] .
Very reminiscent of Einstein style thought experiments, such as riding a beam of light.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31296440</id>
	<title>The Arrow of Time</title>
	<author>Maclir</author>
	<datestamp>1267283220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Time flies likes an arrow - fruit flies like a banana.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time flies likes an arrow - fruit flies like a banana .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time flies likes an arrow - fruit flies like a banana.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31297276</id>
	<title>Re:Time does not exist</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1267292580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In "The Fabric of the Cosmos" Brian Greene addresses that argument for the arrow of time.  It quickly leads to all sorts of problems.  Sure, it might be true that the past is a fabrication but it's not a very productive assumption.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In " The Fabric of the Cosmos " Brian Greene addresses that argument for the arrow of time .
It quickly leads to all sorts of problems .
Sure , it might be true that the past is a fabrication but it 's not a very productive assumption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In "The Fabric of the Cosmos" Brian Greene addresses that argument for the arrow of time.
It quickly leads to all sorts of problems.
Sure, it might be true that the past is a fabrication but it's not a very productive assumption.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292528</id>
	<title>Just a measurement...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267189080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Time is just a measurement, nothing more.  It is a useful construct, much in the way that idea of free will or the illusion of "self" are useful constructs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time is just a measurement , nothing more .
It is a useful construct , much in the way that idea of free will or the illusion of " self " are useful constructs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time is just a measurement, nothing more.
It is a useful construct, much in the way that idea of free will or the illusion of "self" are useful constructs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291974</id>
	<title>What is time?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267186320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Baby don't hurt me... Don't hurt me... no more...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Baby do n't hurt me... Do n't hurt me... no more.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Baby don't hurt me... Don't hurt me... no more...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293008</id>
	<title>Re:[...]you can't turn an omelet into an egg.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267191960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, that doesn't result in another complete egg.  (If it did, it would be an entropy violation.)  Instead, you need to feed several omelets to the chicken, and you get back one egg plus a load of crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , that does n't result in another complete egg .
( If it did , it would be an entropy violation .
) Instead , you need to feed several omelets to the chicken , and you get back one egg plus a load of crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, that doesn't result in another complete egg.
(If it did, it would be an entropy violation.
)  Instead, you need to feed several omelets to the chicken, and you get back one egg plus a load of crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292410</id>
	<title>Re:Not that it makes sense</title>
	<author>mjvvjm</author>
	<datestamp>1267188420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>And not to reply twice, but it doesn't work:<br><br>octave-3.0.3.exe:13&gt; A = [[2 3 0]; [4 5 0]; [0 0 1]]<br>A =<br><br>&nbsp; &nbsp;2&nbsp; &nbsp;3&nbsp; &nbsp;0<br>&nbsp; &nbsp;4&nbsp; &nbsp;5&nbsp; &nbsp;0<br>&nbsp; &nbsp;0&nbsp; &nbsp;0&nbsp; &nbsp;1<br><br>octave-3.0.3.exe:14&gt; T = [[1 0 5];[0 1 6];[0 0 1]]<br>T =<br><br>&nbsp; &nbsp;1&nbsp; &nbsp;0&nbsp; &nbsp;5<br>&nbsp; &nbsp;0&nbsp; &nbsp;1&nbsp; &nbsp;6<br>&nbsp; &nbsp;0&nbsp; &nbsp;0&nbsp; &nbsp;1<br><br>octave-3.0.3.exe:15&gt; T*A<br>ans =<br><br>&nbsp; &nbsp;2&nbsp; &nbsp;3&nbsp; &nbsp;5<br>&nbsp; &nbsp;4&nbsp; &nbsp;5&nbsp; &nbsp;6<br>&nbsp; &nbsp;0&nbsp; &nbsp;0&nbsp; &nbsp;1</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>And not to reply twice , but it does n't work : octave-3.0.3.exe : 13 &gt; A = [ [ 2 3 0 ] ; [ 4 5 0 ] ; [ 0 0 1 ] ] A =     2     3     0     4     5     0     0     0     1octave-3.0.3.exe : 14 &gt; T = [ [ 1 0 5 ] ; [ 0 1 6 ] ; [ 0 0 1 ] ] T =     1     0     5     0     1     6     0     0     1octave-3.0.3.exe : 15 &gt; T * Aans =     2     3     5     4     5     6     0     0     1</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And not to reply twice, but it doesn't work:octave-3.0.3.exe:13&gt; A = [[2 3 0]; [4 5 0]; [0 0 1]]A =   2   3   0   4   5   0   0   0   1octave-3.0.3.exe:14&gt; T = [[1 0 5];[0 1 6];[0 0 1]]T =   1   0   5   0   1   6   0   0   1octave-3.0.3.exe:15&gt; T*Aans =   2   3   5   4   5   6   0   0   1</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31449574</id>
	<title>Re:[...]you can't turn an omelet into an egg.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1268388840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or you fry a baby and feed it to the mother. About just as fucked up. ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or you fry a baby and feed it to the mother .
About just as fucked up .
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or you fry a baby and feed it to the mother.
About just as fucked up.
^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292420</id>
	<title>Time is</title>
	<author>flashnode</author>
	<datestamp>1267188480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yesterday's history -- tomorrow's a mystery</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yesterday 's history -- tomorrow 's a mystery</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yesterday's history -- tomorrow's a mystery</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293494</id>
	<title>Re:Islamic view of "time"</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1267195080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The Islamic view of time and the universe in general is that what has happened, is happening and will happen has already been determined ("it is written").</i></p><p>So much for god endowing us with free will.  Meh, who needs it anyway, right?  Well, if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go murder my neighbour now... I'd feel bad about it, but if he dies, well, it was god's will, right?</p><p>As an aside, I've always felt that an omniscient god, by definition, obviates free will.  Looks like Muslim scholars just had the balls to come out and admit it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Islamic view of time and the universe in general is that what has happened , is happening and will happen has already been determined ( " it is written " ) .So much for god endowing us with free will .
Meh , who needs it anyway , right ?
Well , if you 'll excuse me , I 'm gon na go murder my neighbour now... I 'd feel bad about it , but if he dies , well , it was god 's will , right ? As an aside , I 've always felt that an omniscient god , by definition , obviates free will .
Looks like Muslim scholars just had the balls to come out and admit it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Islamic view of time and the universe in general is that what has happened, is happening and will happen has already been determined ("it is written").So much for god endowing us with free will.
Meh, who needs it anyway, right?
Well, if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go murder my neighbour now... I'd feel bad about it, but if he dies, well, it was god's will, right?As an aside, I've always felt that an omniscient god, by definition, obviates free will.
Looks like Muslim scholars just had the balls to come out and admit it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291794</id>
	<title>St Augustine already figured it out:</title>
	<author>joebok</author>
	<datestamp>1267185300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From St. Augustine's Confessions, Book XI:</p><p>CHAP. XIV. -- NEITHER TIME PAST NOR FUTURE, BUT THE PRESENT ONLY, REALLY IS.</p><p>17. At no time, therefore, hadst Thou not made anything, because Thou hadst made time itself. And no times are co-eternal with Thee, because Thou remainest for ever; but should these continue, they would not be times. For what is time? Who can easily and briefly explain it? Who even in thought can comprehend it, even to the pronouncing of a word concerning it? But what in speaking do we refer to more familiarly and knowingly than time? And certainly we understand when we speak of it; we understand also when we hear it spoken of by another. What, then, is time? If no one ask of me, I know; if I wish to explain to him who asks, I know not. Yet I say with confidence, that I know that if nothing passed away, there would not be past time; and if nothing were coming, there would not be future time; and if nothing were, there would not be present time. Those two times, therefore, past and future, how are they, when even the past now is not; and the future is not as yet? But should the present be always present, and should it not pass into time past, time truly it could not be, but eternity. If, then, time present -- if it be time -- only comes into existence because it passes into time past, how do we say that even this is, whose cause of being is that it shall not be -- namely, so that we cannot truly say that time is, unless because it tends not to be?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From St. Augustine 's Confessions , Book XI : CHAP .
XIV. -- NEITHER TIME PAST NOR FUTURE , BUT THE PRESENT ONLY , REALLY IS.17 .
At no time , therefore , hadst Thou not made anything , because Thou hadst made time itself .
And no times are co-eternal with Thee , because Thou remainest for ever ; but should these continue , they would not be times .
For what is time ?
Who can easily and briefly explain it ?
Who even in thought can comprehend it , even to the pronouncing of a word concerning it ?
But what in speaking do we refer to more familiarly and knowingly than time ?
And certainly we understand when we speak of it ; we understand also when we hear it spoken of by another .
What , then , is time ?
If no one ask of me , I know ; if I wish to explain to him who asks , I know not .
Yet I say with confidence , that I know that if nothing passed away , there would not be past time ; and if nothing were coming , there would not be future time ; and if nothing were , there would not be present time .
Those two times , therefore , past and future , how are they , when even the past now is not ; and the future is not as yet ?
But should the present be always present , and should it not pass into time past , time truly it could not be , but eternity .
If , then , time present -- if it be time -- only comes into existence because it passes into time past , how do we say that even this is , whose cause of being is that it shall not be -- namely , so that we can not truly say that time is , unless because it tends not to be ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From St. Augustine's Confessions, Book XI:CHAP.
XIV. -- NEITHER TIME PAST NOR FUTURE, BUT THE PRESENT ONLY, REALLY IS.17.
At no time, therefore, hadst Thou not made anything, because Thou hadst made time itself.
And no times are co-eternal with Thee, because Thou remainest for ever; but should these continue, they would not be times.
For what is time?
Who can easily and briefly explain it?
Who even in thought can comprehend it, even to the pronouncing of a word concerning it?
But what in speaking do we refer to more familiarly and knowingly than time?
And certainly we understand when we speak of it; we understand also when we hear it spoken of by another.
What, then, is time?
If no one ask of me, I know; if I wish to explain to him who asks, I know not.
Yet I say with confidence, that I know that if nothing passed away, there would not be past time; and if nothing were coming, there would not be future time; and if nothing were, there would not be present time.
Those two times, therefore, past and future, how are they, when even the past now is not; and the future is not as yet?
But should the present be always present, and should it not pass into time past, time truly it could not be, but eternity.
If, then, time present -- if it be time -- only comes into existence because it passes into time past, how do we say that even this is, whose cause of being is that it shall not be -- namely, so that we cannot truly say that time is, unless because it tends not to be?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31294656</id>
	<title>Recognition of change ...</title>
	<author>rmdyer</author>
	<datestamp>1267206180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A physicist I'm not, nor mathematician, but 'TIME is CHANGE' in my book.</p></div><p>The following is speculation<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>Not quite.  To us, time is the recognition of change, or that -a- change occurred.   The brain machine is wired such that sensory information generates impulses, which after these impulses have travelled through the matrix, and if the new impulses are "different" than the previous (compared against the previous physical re-wiring), a new physical re-wiring occurs.  The "comparison" is done by "negative" feedback, in much the same way a "negative feedback" operational amplifier configuration works.  This process is "recursive", such that the "changes of previous change" are compared in an exactly the same way.  Ultimately the brain "weights" those "comparison re-wirings" such that the "most important" differences have the largest feedback weight.  And this is the important part.  The whole recursive feedback process solely exists to keep the machine at a stable equilibrium with its sensory input, hence the environment of the machine.  Memories are just the meta-level artifact of this process.  Machine self awareness spontaneously occurs at  the negative feedback "node" of input sensory impulses reacting with all previous weighted comparisons re-wirings.  The "feeling" of being "within", and as "separate from", yet a "part of" the external physical world occurs at the "comparison impulse frequency", and -is- the actual re-wiring process, per unit-impulse-time.<br>As for "the arrow of time", we are asking why does change happen at all, and especially in only one direction, and not the other.  Well it seems that would be the case because that is the way the universe is already "loaded up".  Certainly most particle interactions "could" mathematically happen the other way around, but the existing physical state values for velocity vectors already exists.  You might as well ask "Why are the values already loaded?"  Or, alternatively "Why does the physical universe already have state?"<br>This last question leads inevitably to the concept of a universe without end because anything that has state(s) cannot "lose it (them)".   The word "state" here is used fluidly, instead of iteratively.  A substance of a "infinitely continuous and un-sub dividable" nature, is probably what the universe is made of.  And this "substance" is probably not "static".  It is likely the "substance" fluctuates with "wildly and unfathomable" properties, yet provides "wells" of quantitative meta-zones that define "location and size" for our purposes.  If you consider for example that the equation "y=mx+b" defines a line, yet is completely continuous, then it becomes odd that we expect our measuring instruments to ever tell us the exact nature of the universe beyond the "minimum" scale for the quantum environment.  There may very well be a "boundary", or "interface level" scale by which we can never penetrate, beyond which lies an even deeper physical manifestation.  Think of it this way.  Legos are building blocks by which you can build things at their "interface level".  That is our "minimum scale".  However we know that Legos are actually made of a smaller substance yet.  It may be that things going on at the deeper level can cause our interfaces to "break" occasionally, which leads to things like radioactivity or spontaneous creation via vacuum fluctuation.  In this way, the universe is probably infinitely sub-divided into zones of higher and conversely ever deeper  scale.  All the observable features of the universe that we know about appear to us at "our scale" because we simply exist at a nearer "relative scale" to be able to experience those features.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A physicist I 'm not , nor mathematician , but 'TIME is CHANGE ' in my book.The following is speculation ...Not quite .
To us , time is the recognition of change , or that -a- change occurred .
The brain machine is wired such that sensory information generates impulses , which after these impulses have travelled through the matrix , and if the new impulses are " different " than the previous ( compared against the previous physical re-wiring ) , a new physical re-wiring occurs .
The " comparison " is done by " negative " feedback , in much the same way a " negative feedback " operational amplifier configuration works .
This process is " recursive " , such that the " changes of previous change " are compared in an exactly the same way .
Ultimately the brain " weights " those " comparison re-wirings " such that the " most important " differences have the largest feedback weight .
And this is the important part .
The whole recursive feedback process solely exists to keep the machine at a stable equilibrium with its sensory input , hence the environment of the machine .
Memories are just the meta-level artifact of this process .
Machine self awareness spontaneously occurs at the negative feedback " node " of input sensory impulses reacting with all previous weighted comparisons re-wirings .
The " feeling " of being " within " , and as " separate from " , yet a " part of " the external physical world occurs at the " comparison impulse frequency " , and -is- the actual re-wiring process , per unit-impulse-time.As for " the arrow of time " , we are asking why does change happen at all , and especially in only one direction , and not the other .
Well it seems that would be the case because that is the way the universe is already " loaded up " .
Certainly most particle interactions " could " mathematically happen the other way around , but the existing physical state values for velocity vectors already exists .
You might as well ask " Why are the values already loaded ?
" Or , alternatively " Why does the physical universe already have state ?
" This last question leads inevitably to the concept of a universe without end because anything that has state ( s ) can not " lose it ( them ) " .
The word " state " here is used fluidly , instead of iteratively .
A substance of a " infinitely continuous and un-sub dividable " nature , is probably what the universe is made of .
And this " substance " is probably not " static " .
It is likely the " substance " fluctuates with " wildly and unfathomable " properties , yet provides " wells " of quantitative meta-zones that define " location and size " for our purposes .
If you consider for example that the equation " y = mx + b " defines a line , yet is completely continuous , then it becomes odd that we expect our measuring instruments to ever tell us the exact nature of the universe beyond the " minimum " scale for the quantum environment .
There may very well be a " boundary " , or " interface level " scale by which we can never penetrate , beyond which lies an even deeper physical manifestation .
Think of it this way .
Legos are building blocks by which you can build things at their " interface level " .
That is our " minimum scale " .
However we know that Legos are actually made of a smaller substance yet .
It may be that things going on at the deeper level can cause our interfaces to " break " occasionally , which leads to things like radioactivity or spontaneous creation via vacuum fluctuation .
In this way , the universe is probably infinitely sub-divided into zones of higher and conversely ever deeper scale .
All the observable features of the universe that we know about appear to us at " our scale " because we simply exist at a nearer " relative scale " to be able to experience those features .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A physicist I'm not, nor mathematician, but 'TIME is CHANGE' in my book.The following is speculation ...Not quite.
To us, time is the recognition of change, or that -a- change occurred.
The brain machine is wired such that sensory information generates impulses, which after these impulses have travelled through the matrix, and if the new impulses are "different" than the previous (compared against the previous physical re-wiring), a new physical re-wiring occurs.
The "comparison" is done by "negative" feedback, in much the same way a "negative feedback" operational amplifier configuration works.
This process is "recursive", such that the "changes of previous change" are compared in an exactly the same way.
Ultimately the brain "weights" those "comparison re-wirings" such that the "most important" differences have the largest feedback weight.
And this is the important part.
The whole recursive feedback process solely exists to keep the machine at a stable equilibrium with its sensory input, hence the environment of the machine.
Memories are just the meta-level artifact of this process.
Machine self awareness spontaneously occurs at  the negative feedback "node" of input sensory impulses reacting with all previous weighted comparisons re-wirings.
The "feeling" of being "within", and as "separate from", yet a "part of" the external physical world occurs at the "comparison impulse frequency", and -is- the actual re-wiring process, per unit-impulse-time.As for "the arrow of time", we are asking why does change happen at all, and especially in only one direction, and not the other.
Well it seems that would be the case because that is the way the universe is already "loaded up".
Certainly most particle interactions "could" mathematically happen the other way around, but the existing physical state values for velocity vectors already exists.
You might as well ask "Why are the values already loaded?
"  Or, alternatively "Why does the physical universe already have state?
"This last question leads inevitably to the concept of a universe without end because anything that has state(s) cannot "lose it (them)".
The word "state" here is used fluidly, instead of iteratively.
A substance of a "infinitely continuous and un-sub dividable" nature, is probably what the universe is made of.
And this "substance" is probably not "static".
It is likely the "substance" fluctuates with "wildly and unfathomable" properties, yet provides "wells" of quantitative meta-zones that define "location and size" for our purposes.
If you consider for example that the equation "y=mx+b" defines a line, yet is completely continuous, then it becomes odd that we expect our measuring instruments to ever tell us the exact nature of the universe beyond the "minimum" scale for the quantum environment.
There may very well be a "boundary", or "interface level" scale by which we can never penetrate, beyond which lies an even deeper physical manifestation.
Think of it this way.
Legos are building blocks by which you can build things at their "interface level".
That is our "minimum scale".
However we know that Legos are actually made of a smaller substance yet.
It may be that things going on at the deeper level can cause our interfaces to "break" occasionally, which leads to things like radioactivity or spontaneous creation via vacuum fluctuation.
In this way, the universe is probably infinitely sub-divided into zones of higher and conversely ever deeper  scale.
All the observable features of the universe that we know about appear to us at "our scale" because we simply exist at a nearer "relative scale" to be able to experience those features.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291738</id>
	<title>My head hurts....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267185000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"We remember the past but we don&rsquo;t remember the future. There are irreversible processes"<br> <br>
I am in NO WAY qualified to argue on the subject, but the quoted statement seems like a problem with words and definitions. You can't 'remember' the future because the word 'remember' doesn't apply very well to the word (or usage of the word) 'future.'<br> <br>
I'll probably be blasted out to hell by an expert in 3...2...1...</htmltext>
<tokenext>" We remember the past but we don    t remember the future .
There are irreversible processes " I am in NO WAY qualified to argue on the subject , but the quoted statement seems like a problem with words and definitions .
You ca n't 'remember ' the future because the word 'remember ' does n't apply very well to the word ( or usage of the word ) 'future .
' I 'll probably be blasted out to hell by an expert in 3...2...1.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We remember the past but we don’t remember the future.
There are irreversible processes" 
I am in NO WAY qualified to argue on the subject, but the quoted statement seems like a problem with words and definitions.
You can't 'remember' the future because the word 'remember' doesn't apply very well to the word (or usage of the word) 'future.
' 
I'll probably be blasted out to hell by an expert in 3...2...1...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292468</id>
	<title>We can remember the future</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267188720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just as the chessmaster remembers the future of their games, we just need to think infinite steps ahead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just as the chessmaster remembers the future of their games , we just need to think infinite steps ahead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just as the chessmaster remembers the future of their games, we just need to think infinite steps ahead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31294036</id>
	<title>Quaternion spacetime reversal is local, not global</title>
	<author>sweetser</author>
	<datestamp>1267199340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>For fun, let me be more technical.
<p>If you want to reverse the time of a spacetime event, you use this member of the Lorentz group, diag{-1, 1, 1, 1}.  Have that act on a 4-vector (t, x, y, z) and you get (-t, x, y, z).  Now how are you going to get time back to were it started?  Use exactly the same element.  The Lorentz group is a <i>global</i> symmetry.  It is to all levels of accuracy the same darn thing. Makes much math easier, but it is why physicists say the laws are identical if time goes backwards or forwards.
</p><p>The important laws in physics are <i>local</i>. Both the standard model and general relativity depend on the values of t, x, y, z.  Let's construct a local time reversal operator, call it B, such that B (t, x, y, z) = (-t, x, y, z).  This can be done by presuming all three of these are quaternions, a 4D rank 1 tensor upgraded to also be able multiply and divide like real and complex numbers (full disclosure: I own quaternions.com). R can be calculated, it is (x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - t^2, 2 t x, 2 t y, 2 t z)/(t^2 + x^2 + y^2 + z^2).  That will work every time, but if you want to reverse something, then reverse it again, the second B will not be identical to the first B.  The first term is identical, but the 3-vector part flips signs, not magnitudes. When one makes time reversal local using quaternion operators, the arrow of time is not a problem because there is a mathematical difference between reversing the reverse of time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For fun , let me be more technical .
If you want to reverse the time of a spacetime event , you use this member of the Lorentz group , diag { -1 , 1 , 1 , 1 } .
Have that act on a 4-vector ( t , x , y , z ) and you get ( -t , x , y , z ) .
Now how are you going to get time back to were it started ?
Use exactly the same element .
The Lorentz group is a global symmetry .
It is to all levels of accuracy the same darn thing .
Makes much math easier , but it is why physicists say the laws are identical if time goes backwards or forwards .
The important laws in physics are local .
Both the standard model and general relativity depend on the values of t , x , y , z. Let 's construct a local time reversal operator , call it B , such that B ( t , x , y , z ) = ( -t , x , y , z ) .
This can be done by presuming all three of these are quaternions , a 4D rank 1 tensor upgraded to also be able multiply and divide like real and complex numbers ( full disclosure : I own quaternions.com ) .
R can be calculated , it is ( x ^ 2 + y ^ 2 + z ^ 2 - t ^ 2 , 2 t x , 2 t y , 2 t z ) / ( t ^ 2 + x ^ 2 + y ^ 2 + z ^ 2 ) .
That will work every time , but if you want to reverse something , then reverse it again , the second B will not be identical to the first B. The first term is identical , but the 3-vector part flips signs , not magnitudes .
When one makes time reversal local using quaternion operators , the arrow of time is not a problem because there is a mathematical difference between reversing the reverse of time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For fun, let me be more technical.
If you want to reverse the time of a spacetime event, you use this member of the Lorentz group, diag{-1, 1, 1, 1}.
Have that act on a 4-vector (t, x, y, z) and you get (-t, x, y, z).
Now how are you going to get time back to were it started?
Use exactly the same element.
The Lorentz group is a global symmetry.
It is to all levels of accuracy the same darn thing.
Makes much math easier, but it is why physicists say the laws are identical if time goes backwards or forwards.
The important laws in physics are local.
Both the standard model and general relativity depend on the values of t, x, y, z.  Let's construct a local time reversal operator, call it B, such that B (t, x, y, z) = (-t, x, y, z).
This can be done by presuming all three of these are quaternions, a 4D rank 1 tensor upgraded to also be able multiply and divide like real and complex numbers (full disclosure: I own quaternions.com).
R can be calculated, it is (x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - t^2, 2 t x, 2 t y, 2 t z)/(t^2 + x^2 + y^2 + z^2).
That will work every time, but if you want to reverse something, then reverse it again, the second B will not be identical to the first B.  The first term is identical, but the 3-vector part flips signs, not magnitudes.
When one makes time reversal local using quaternion operators, the arrow of time is not a problem because there is a mathematical difference between reversing the reverse of time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292648</id>
	<title>Re:Timeline</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267190040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Except<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... medical studies show that 'Deja Vu' is really just brain glitches that are nothing more than thinking after the fact that you knew it was going to work that way.  You're having a minor seizure, not predicting the future.</p></div><p>Ha!  You've been fooled.</p><p>That's one of the Universe's methods of protecting the illusion of causality.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except ... medical studies show that 'Deja Vu ' is really just brain glitches that are nothing more than thinking after the fact that you knew it was going to work that way .
You 're having a minor seizure , not predicting the future.Ha !
You 've been fooled.That 's one of the Universe 's methods of protecting the illusion of causality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except ... medical studies show that 'Deja Vu' is really just brain glitches that are nothing more than thinking after the fact that you knew it was going to work that way.
You're having a minor seizure, not predicting the future.Ha!
You've been fooled.That's one of the Universe's methods of protecting the illusion of causality.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31316404</id>
	<title>Quantum Theroy?</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1267459920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am tired, and of limited brain power right now, but couldn't time be described as a series of linear states, continually changing, but never repeating in a deterministic way?</p><p>Then if we go on to say what we know of Quantum Theory is correct, that things may exist in more than one state and any point in its existence, might this not prove (in a limited way) that time at least in the physical manifestation of "states" does not exist, at least at a certain level. Perhaps that is the "problem" with Quantum theory and its multiple alive/dead cat states, is that at the quantum level time ceases to exist, and we as humans are trying to describe that relationship through the lens of perception that is the human experience with time.</p><p>Or what I said, makes no sense to someone who knows what they are talking about. Pass me the hydro spanner...</p><p>Also we all know that Canadian Sir Sanford Fleming invented time, at least the standard kind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am tired , and of limited brain power right now , but could n't time be described as a series of linear states , continually changing , but never repeating in a deterministic way ? Then if we go on to say what we know of Quantum Theory is correct , that things may exist in more than one state and any point in its existence , might this not prove ( in a limited way ) that time at least in the physical manifestation of " states " does not exist , at least at a certain level .
Perhaps that is the " problem " with Quantum theory and its multiple alive/dead cat states , is that at the quantum level time ceases to exist , and we as humans are trying to describe that relationship through the lens of perception that is the human experience with time.Or what I said , makes no sense to someone who knows what they are talking about .
Pass me the hydro spanner...Also we all know that Canadian Sir Sanford Fleming invented time , at least the standard kind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am tired, and of limited brain power right now, but couldn't time be described as a series of linear states, continually changing, but never repeating in a deterministic way?Then if we go on to say what we know of Quantum Theory is correct, that things may exist in more than one state and any point in its existence, might this not prove (in a limited way) that time at least in the physical manifestation of "states" does not exist, at least at a certain level.
Perhaps that is the "problem" with Quantum theory and its multiple alive/dead cat states, is that at the quantum level time ceases to exist, and we as humans are trying to describe that relationship through the lens of perception that is the human experience with time.Or what I said, makes no sense to someone who knows what they are talking about.
Pass me the hydro spanner...Also we all know that Canadian Sir Sanford Fleming invented time, at least the standard kind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292366</id>
	<title>Re:Timeline</title>
	<author>Existential Wombat</author>
	<datestamp>1267188180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect , but * actually * from a non-linear , non-subjective viewpoint - it 's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31295410</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267303860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, that is very interesting though. Time could be going forward then backward and hell alternating 100 billion times a second for all we know.</p><p>I'm being serious. How would you ever know if time was going backwards?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , that is very interesting though .
Time could be going forward then backward and hell alternating 100 billion times a second for all we know.I 'm being serious .
How would you ever know if time was going backwards ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, that is very interesting though.
Time could be going forward then backward and hell alternating 100 billion times a second for all we know.I'm being serious.
How would you ever know if time was going backwards?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293252</id>
	<title>All I heard was:</title>
	<author>Tangentc</author>
	<datestamp>1267193520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Timey-wimey ball.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Timey-wimey ball .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Timey-wimey ball.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292044</id>
	<title>Re:Why that's easy!</title>
	<author>Toonol</author>
	<datestamp>1267186680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're not very intellectually curious.  Studying time doesn't mean your goal is to make a time machine, any more than studying gravity means you want to create an antigravity gun.<br> <br>

Why do you think time <i>shouldn't</i> be studied, when so many other fundamental attributes of our universe should be?  It seems you think time possesses some magically unknowable characteristics.  Defining it as distance over velocity is as simplistic as defining mass as density times volume, and thinking that explains anything.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're not very intellectually curious .
Studying time does n't mean your goal is to make a time machine , any more than studying gravity means you want to create an antigravity gun .
Why do you think time should n't be studied , when so many other fundamental attributes of our universe should be ?
It seems you think time possesses some magically unknowable characteristics .
Defining it as distance over velocity is as simplistic as defining mass as density times volume , and thinking that explains anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're not very intellectually curious.
Studying time doesn't mean your goal is to make a time machine, any more than studying gravity means you want to create an antigravity gun.
Why do you think time shouldn't be studied, when so many other fundamental attributes of our universe should be?
It seems you think time possesses some magically unknowable characteristics.
Defining it as distance over velocity is as simplistic as defining mass as density times volume, and thinking that explains anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31299042</id>
	<title>Negative information</title>
	<author>jpg5</author>
	<datestamp>1267303680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There was an article a couple of months ago. I think I saw it also here on slashdot. From a phisicist from MTI I think, who had a very nice idea.

He was introducing a concept of negative information, as something that has the ability to remove/delete information from a system. He was also saying that this negative information is "generated" when time travels backwards and in such a way that it erases the information that was generated while it was traveling forward. So this could explain why we don't remember future. So we only remember the results of processes that have not been reversed (...yet? on the state we experience right "now"?).

If this is true, then it also breaks second law of thermodynamics. Not that it matters in the way we experience world. It would only matter if someone could be unaffected by the negative information. But then he is probably outside of this system, if such "place" exists. The law will then have to be restated as "the entropy on a closed system can decrease, but nobody in the system can notice it".<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)

If for example we had a closed system with some creatures in it and we were holding it in our hands and we were observing it. Some processes would look "reversible" to us. But for a creature in this closed system, would it be able to understand that this "reversible" process is being actually reversed? Keep in mind that the reverse will also reverse the states of the creatures mind about the time at which the process went forward...

To be honest I liked this idea. At least it's less crazy than the idea of bozons that try to kill the machine that tries to reveal them...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>There was an article a couple of months ago .
I think I saw it also here on slashdot .
From a phisicist from MTI I think , who had a very nice idea .
He was introducing a concept of negative information , as something that has the ability to remove/delete information from a system .
He was also saying that this negative information is " generated " when time travels backwards and in such a way that it erases the information that was generated while it was traveling forward .
So this could explain why we do n't remember future .
So we only remember the results of processes that have not been reversed ( ...yet ?
on the state we experience right " now " ? ) .
If this is true , then it also breaks second law of thermodynamics .
Not that it matters in the way we experience world .
It would only matter if someone could be unaffected by the negative information .
But then he is probably outside of this system , if such " place " exists .
The law will then have to be restated as " the entropy on a closed system can decrease , but nobody in the system can notice it " .
: - ) If for example we had a closed system with some creatures in it and we were holding it in our hands and we were observing it .
Some processes would look " reversible " to us .
But for a creature in this closed system , would it be able to understand that this " reversible " process is being actually reversed ?
Keep in mind that the reverse will also reverse the states of the creatures mind about the time at which the process went forward.. . To be honest I liked this idea .
At least it 's less crazy than the idea of bozons that try to kill the machine that tries to reveal them... ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was an article a couple of months ago.
I think I saw it also here on slashdot.
From a phisicist from MTI I think, who had a very nice idea.
He was introducing a concept of negative information, as something that has the ability to remove/delete information from a system.
He was also saying that this negative information is "generated" when time travels backwards and in such a way that it erases the information that was generated while it was traveling forward.
So this could explain why we don't remember future.
So we only remember the results of processes that have not been reversed (...yet?
on the state we experience right "now"?).
If this is true, then it also breaks second law of thermodynamics.
Not that it matters in the way we experience world.
It would only matter if someone could be unaffected by the negative information.
But then he is probably outside of this system, if such "place" exists.
The law will then have to be restated as "the entropy on a closed system can decrease, but nobody in the system can notice it".
:-)

If for example we had a closed system with some creatures in it and we were holding it in our hands and we were observing it.
Some processes would look "reversible" to us.
But for a creature in this closed system, would it be able to understand that this "reversible" process is being actually reversed?
Keep in mind that the reverse will also reverse the states of the creatures mind about the time at which the process went forward...

To be honest I liked this idea.
At least it's less crazy than the idea of bozons that try to kill the machine that tries to reveal them... ;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31311904</id>
	<title>Doctor Who explanation</title>
	<author>Anakie</author>
	<datestamp>1267377840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wibbly wobbly timey wimey.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wibbly wobbly timey wimey .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wibbly wobbly timey wimey.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31295526</id>
	<title>Re:time has no arrow, spacetime does</title>
	<author>slinches</author>
	<datestamp>1267262340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Since Minkowski's observation was based on work with special relativity, people presume is observation applies only for relativistic systems. Sorry, Nature is more consistent than that: one needs to think about spacetime always, even if it contributes squat.</p></div><p>So in other words, people assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey... stuff.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since Minkowski 's observation was based on work with special relativity , people presume is observation applies only for relativistic systems .
Sorry , Nature is more consistent than that : one needs to think about spacetime always , even if it contributes squat.So in other words , people assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect , but actually from a non-linear , non-subjective viewpoint , it 's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly , timey-wimey... stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since Minkowski's observation was based on work with special relativity, people presume is observation applies only for relativistic systems.
Sorry, Nature is more consistent than that: one needs to think about spacetime always, even if it contributes squat.So in other words, people assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey... stuff.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292298</id>
	<title>Re:Sean Carroll's "Real Rules for Time Travelers"</title>
	<author>BigSlowTarget</author>
	<datestamp>1267187820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fredrick Brown<br>"The first time machine, gentlemen," Professor Johnson proudly informed his two colleagues. "True, it is a small-scale experimental model. It will operate only on objects weighing less than three pounds, five ounces and for distances into the past and future of twelve minutes or less. But it works."</p><p>The small-scale model looked like a small scale&mdash;a postage scale&mdash;except for two dials in the part under the platform.</p><p>Professor Johnson held up a small metal cube. "Our experimental object," he said, "is a brass cube weighing one pound, two point three ounces. First, I shall send it five minutes into the future."</p><p>He leaned forward and set one of the dials on the time machine. "Look at your watches," he said.</p><p>They looked at their watches. Professor Johnson placed the cube gently on the machine's platform. It vanished.</p><p>Five minutes later, to the second, it reappeared.</p><p>Professor Johnson picked it up. "Now five minutes into the past." He set the other dial. Holding the cube in his hand he looked at his watch. "It is six minutes before three o'clock. I shall now activate the mechanism&mdash;by placing the cube on the platform&mdash;at exactly three o'clock. Therefore, the cube should, at five minutes before three, vanish from my hand and appear on the platform, five minutes before I place it there."</p><p>"How can you place it there, then?" asked one of his colleagues.</p><p>"It will, as my hand approaches, vanish from the platform and appear in my hand to be placed there. Three o'clock. Notice, please."</p><p>The cube vanished from his hand.</p><p>It appeared on the platform of the time machine.</p><p>"See? Five minutes before I shall place it there, it is there!"</p><p>His other colleague frowned at the cube. "But," he said, "what if, now that it has already appeared five minutes before you place it there, you should change your mind about doing so and not place it there at three o'clock? Wouldn't there be a paradox of some sort involved?"</p><p>"An interesting idea," Professor Johnson said. "I had not thought of it, and it will be interesting to try. Very well, I shall not<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."</p><p>There was no paradox at all. The cube remained.</p><p>But the entire rest of the Universe, professors and all, vanished.</p><p>Moral:  The real rules for the time traveler include: know exactly what's going to happen when you start screwing around with fundamental universe wide constants like causality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fredrick Brown " The first time machine , gentlemen , " Professor Johnson proudly informed his two colleagues .
" True , it is a small-scale experimental model .
It will operate only on objects weighing less than three pounds , five ounces and for distances into the past and future of twelve minutes or less .
But it works .
" The small-scale model looked like a small scale    a postage scale    except for two dials in the part under the platform.Professor Johnson held up a small metal cube .
" Our experimental object , " he said , " is a brass cube weighing one pound , two point three ounces .
First , I shall send it five minutes into the future .
" He leaned forward and set one of the dials on the time machine .
" Look at your watches , " he said.They looked at their watches .
Professor Johnson placed the cube gently on the machine 's platform .
It vanished.Five minutes later , to the second , it reappeared.Professor Johnson picked it up .
" Now five minutes into the past .
" He set the other dial .
Holding the cube in his hand he looked at his watch .
" It is six minutes before three o'clock .
I shall now activate the mechanism    by placing the cube on the platform    at exactly three o'clock .
Therefore , the cube should , at five minutes before three , vanish from my hand and appear on the platform , five minutes before I place it there .
" " How can you place it there , then ?
" asked one of his colleagues .
" It will , as my hand approaches , vanish from the platform and appear in my hand to be placed there .
Three o'clock .
Notice , please .
" The cube vanished from his hand.It appeared on the platform of the time machine. " See ?
Five minutes before I shall place it there , it is there !
" His other colleague frowned at the cube .
" But , " he said , " what if , now that it has already appeared five minutes before you place it there , you should change your mind about doing so and not place it there at three o'clock ?
Would n't there be a paradox of some sort involved ?
" " An interesting idea , " Professor Johnson said .
" I had not thought of it , and it will be interesting to try .
Very well , I shall not ... " There was no paradox at all .
The cube remained.But the entire rest of the Universe , professors and all , vanished.Moral : The real rules for the time traveler include : know exactly what 's going to happen when you start screwing around with fundamental universe wide constants like causality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fredrick Brown"The first time machine, gentlemen," Professor Johnson proudly informed his two colleagues.
"True, it is a small-scale experimental model.
It will operate only on objects weighing less than three pounds, five ounces and for distances into the past and future of twelve minutes or less.
But it works.
"The small-scale model looked like a small scale—a postage scale—except for two dials in the part under the platform.Professor Johnson held up a small metal cube.
"Our experimental object," he said, "is a brass cube weighing one pound, two point three ounces.
First, I shall send it five minutes into the future.
"He leaned forward and set one of the dials on the time machine.
"Look at your watches," he said.They looked at their watches.
Professor Johnson placed the cube gently on the machine's platform.
It vanished.Five minutes later, to the second, it reappeared.Professor Johnson picked it up.
"Now five minutes into the past.
" He set the other dial.
Holding the cube in his hand he looked at his watch.
"It is six minutes before three o'clock.
I shall now activate the mechanism—by placing the cube on the platform—at exactly three o'clock.
Therefore, the cube should, at five minutes before three, vanish from my hand and appear on the platform, five minutes before I place it there.
""How can you place it there, then?
" asked one of his colleagues.
"It will, as my hand approaches, vanish from the platform and appear in my hand to be placed there.
Three o'clock.
Notice, please.
"The cube vanished from his hand.It appeared on the platform of the time machine."See?
Five minutes before I shall place it there, it is there!
"His other colleague frowned at the cube.
"But," he said, "what if, now that it has already appeared five minutes before you place it there, you should change your mind about doing so and not place it there at three o'clock?
Wouldn't there be a paradox of some sort involved?
""An interesting idea," Professor Johnson said.
"I had not thought of it, and it will be interesting to try.
Very well, I shall not ..."There was no paradox at all.
The cube remained.But the entire rest of the Universe, professors and all, vanished.Moral:  The real rules for the time traveler include: know exactly what's going to happen when you start screwing around with fundamental universe wide constants like causality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31295116</id>
	<title>Time is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267212840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Time has more than 1 dimension too... just like space.  Every possible outcome of any event creates a branch and the universe splits and follows every path.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time has more than 1 dimension too... just like space .
Every possible outcome of any event creates a branch and the universe splits and follows every path .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time has more than 1 dimension too... just like space.
Every possible outcome of any event creates a branch and the universe splits and follows every path.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31299568</id>
	<title>This smells like philosophical BS to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267264440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't explain every little thing.<br>Some concepts have to be "basic concepts".</p><p>Time seems like an excellent candidate for a basic concept.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't explain every little thing.Some concepts have to be " basic concepts " .Time seems like an excellent candidate for a basic concept .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't explain every little thing.Some concepts have to be "basic concepts".Time seems like an excellent candidate for a basic concept.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293572</id>
	<title>Re:[...]you can't turn an omelet into an egg.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1267195680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, because life is something that (locally) reverses thermodynamics. In fact the only thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , because life is something that ( locally ) reverses thermodynamics .
In fact the only thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, because life is something that (locally) reverses thermodynamics.
In fact the only thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291848</id>
	<title>Wrong.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267185540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no past, there is no future, there is only the present.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no past , there is no future , there is only the present .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no past, there is no future, there is only the present.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293196</id>
	<title>Re:[...]you can't turn an omelet into an egg.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267193220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think the chicken can make an egg of the same mass and composition as the original egg from just the energy and mass supplied by the original egg.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think the chicken can make an egg of the same mass and composition as the original egg from just the energy and mass supplied by the original egg .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think the chicken can make an egg of the same mass and composition as the original egg from just the energy and mass supplied by the original egg.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292316</id>
	<title>Re:Time does not exist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267187880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where are you when you jump off a bridge?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where are you when you jump off a bridge ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where are you when you jump off a bridge?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293708</id>
	<title>Re:Time does not exist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267196700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the past and future don't exist, then the present lies between two non-existent events and therefore the present does not exist either. I'm still not sure how I typed this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the past and future do n't exist , then the present lies between two non-existent events and therefore the present does not exist either .
I 'm still not sure how I typed this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the past and future don't exist, then the present lies between two non-existent events and therefore the present does not exist either.
I'm still not sure how I typed this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293602</id>
	<title>Re:Time does not exist</title>
	<author>geekymachoman</author>
	<datestamp>1267195920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The 'experience of time' exists, which is enough, because it fulfils it's purpose that way.<br>Without time/illusion of time, there is nothing. No evolution, no nothing, so you wouldn't sit there writing this, if time didn't exist (at least as an illusion).</p><p>Using your logic, nothing exists. Prove me wrong.<br>It's 'possible' that you'll wake up one day, in completley different 'reality frame' and see that all 'this' was just a dream or something similliar.<br>Even now, while you dream, you (usually) don't know you'r dreaming, maybe this so called life, is only another 'type' of dream ?</p><p>Prove me wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The 'experience of time ' exists , which is enough , because it fulfils it 's purpose that way.Without time/illusion of time , there is nothing .
No evolution , no nothing , so you would n't sit there writing this , if time did n't exist ( at least as an illusion ) .Using your logic , nothing exists .
Prove me wrong.It 's 'possible ' that you 'll wake up one day , in completley different 'reality frame ' and see that all 'this ' was just a dream or something similliar.Even now , while you dream , you ( usually ) do n't know you'r dreaming , maybe this so called life , is only another 'type ' of dream ? Prove me wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 'experience of time' exists, which is enough, because it fulfils it's purpose that way.Without time/illusion of time, there is nothing.
No evolution, no nothing, so you wouldn't sit there writing this, if time didn't exist (at least as an illusion).Using your logic, nothing exists.
Prove me wrong.It's 'possible' that you'll wake up one day, in completley different 'reality frame' and see that all 'this' was just a dream or something similliar.Even now, while you dream, you (usually) don't know you'r dreaming, maybe this so called life, is only another 'type' of dream ?Prove me wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291660</id>
	<title>Re:Timeline</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1267184580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... medical studies show that 'Deja Vu' is really just brain glitches that are nothing more than thinking after the fact that you knew it was going to work that way.  You're having a minor seizure, not predicting the future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except ... medical studies show that 'Deja Vu ' is really just brain glitches that are nothing more than thinking after the fact that you knew it was going to work that way .
You 're having a minor seizure , not predicting the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except ... medical studies show that 'Deja Vu' is really just brain glitches that are nothing more than thinking after the fact that you knew it was going to work that way.
You're having a minor seizure, not predicting the future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292132</id>
	<title>Re:My head hurts....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267187040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Same AC, teehee...</p><p>Not only that. But "There are irreversible processes" is kind of weak for an argument. I can take apart my keyboard and rebuild it. Have I traveled in time by doing that?</p><p>Turning an omelet back into an egg is "irreversible" only to the extent that we don't the technology to that yet. And what if I stuff the cooked egg back in the shell pieces and glue them back together and give it a coat of paint. As far as the casual observer is concerned, if all I show is an egg, an omelet and broken shell and, lastly, an egg and no omelet, did I go back in time?</p><p>A process is only "irreversible-by-us-humans" until it becomes "reversible-by-us-humans" through advances in technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Same AC , teehee...Not only that .
But " There are irreversible processes " is kind of weak for an argument .
I can take apart my keyboard and rebuild it .
Have I traveled in time by doing that ? Turning an omelet back into an egg is " irreversible " only to the extent that we do n't the technology to that yet .
And what if I stuff the cooked egg back in the shell pieces and glue them back together and give it a coat of paint .
As far as the casual observer is concerned , if all I show is an egg , an omelet and broken shell and , lastly , an egg and no omelet , did I go back in time ? A process is only " irreversible-by-us-humans " until it becomes " reversible-by-us-humans " through advances in technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same AC, teehee...Not only that.
But "There are irreversible processes" is kind of weak for an argument.
I can take apart my keyboard and rebuild it.
Have I traveled in time by doing that?Turning an omelet back into an egg is "irreversible" only to the extent that we don't the technology to that yet.
And what if I stuff the cooked egg back in the shell pieces and glue them back together and give it a coat of paint.
As far as the casual observer is concerned, if all I show is an egg, an omelet and broken shell and, lastly, an egg and no omelet, did I go back in time?A process is only "irreversible-by-us-humans" until it becomes "reversible-by-us-humans" through advances in technology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291948</id>
	<title>Time does not exist</title>
	<author>afabbro</author>
	<datestamp>1267186140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Prove me wrong.</p><p>The future obviously does not exist.  The past?  Doesn't exist either.  Hence, only this present moment exists.</p><p>You can't even prove that the past <i>existed</i>.  The only thing we have is present-moment memories, etc.  I remember typing "Prove me wrong" but my memory is hardly reliable.  If thirty seconds ago you spilled milk on your pants, all you have now is wet, soggy pants, not any "chain of events".  Even if you filmed it, all you have is the present-moment series of images, not some actual piece of the past.</p><p>Only this present moment exists.  All else is wild speculation and fantasy.  Time does not exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Prove me wrong.The future obviously does not exist .
The past ?
Does n't exist either .
Hence , only this present moment exists.You ca n't even prove that the past existed .
The only thing we have is present-moment memories , etc .
I remember typing " Prove me wrong " but my memory is hardly reliable .
If thirty seconds ago you spilled milk on your pants , all you have now is wet , soggy pants , not any " chain of events " .
Even if you filmed it , all you have is the present-moment series of images , not some actual piece of the past.Only this present moment exists .
All else is wild speculation and fantasy .
Time does not exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Prove me wrong.The future obviously does not exist.
The past?
Doesn't exist either.
Hence, only this present moment exists.You can't even prove that the past existed.
The only thing we have is present-moment memories, etc.
I remember typing "Prove me wrong" but my memory is hardly reliable.
If thirty seconds ago you spilled milk on your pants, all you have now is wet, soggy pants, not any "chain of events".
Even if you filmed it, all you have is the present-moment series of images, not some actual piece of the past.Only this present moment exists.
All else is wild speculation and fantasy.
Time does not exist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292016</id>
	<title>Re:[...]you can't turn an omelet into an egg.</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1267186560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Maybe not directly, but you can feed that omelet to a chicken, and then take the resulting egg.</p></div></blockquote><p>

But the chicken produces fewer eggs than you feed it.  Not just "not more", but "fewer."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe not directly , but you can feed that omelet to a chicken , and then take the resulting egg .
But the chicken produces fewer eggs than you feed it .
Not just " not more " , but " fewer .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe not directly, but you can feed that omelet to a chicken, and then take the resulting egg.
But the chicken produces fewer eggs than you feed it.
Not just "not more", but "fewer.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293372</id>
	<title>Re:Time does not exist</title>
	<author>benjamindees</author>
	<datestamp>1267194480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you should test your theory by jumping off a cliff and experiencing the ever-present "now" without being affected by any of your past actions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you should test your theory by jumping off a cliff and experiencing the ever-present " now " without being affected by any of your past actions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you should test your theory by jumping off a cliff and experiencing the ever-present "now" without being affected by any of your past actions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291752</id>
	<title>Why that's easy!</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1267185060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>v = s/t therefore vt = s therefore t - s/v: Time is simply distance over velocity!</p><p>Honestly it's all very well to swindl^H^H^H^H convince people to give you grant money by investigating "time". I mean, the prospects of having one's very own time machine are incredible.</p><p>Yet one has to ask, (and this is where tenses get complicated, I will resort to the Douglas Adams trans-temporal convention) if anything practical wioll have come from such a study, we would have been receiving visitors from "the future" for a long time now! Heck, wars and genocides could have been prevented as far back as ancient Egypt. In fact, human nature being what it is, history will would have become pretty boring...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>v = s/t therefore vt = s therefore t - s/v : Time is simply distance over velocity ! Honestly it 's all very well to swindl ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H convince people to give you grant money by investigating " time " .
I mean , the prospects of having one 's very own time machine are incredible.Yet one has to ask , ( and this is where tenses get complicated , I will resort to the Douglas Adams trans-temporal convention ) if anything practical wioll have come from such a study , we would have been receiving visitors from " the future " for a long time now !
Heck , wars and genocides could have been prevented as far back as ancient Egypt .
In fact , human nature being what it is , history will would have become pretty boring.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>v = s/t therefore vt = s therefore t - s/v: Time is simply distance over velocity!Honestly it's all very well to swindl^H^H^H^H convince people to give you grant money by investigating "time".
I mean, the prospects of having one's very own time machine are incredible.Yet one has to ask, (and this is where tenses get complicated, I will resort to the Douglas Adams trans-temporal convention) if anything practical wioll have come from such a study, we would have been receiving visitors from "the future" for a long time now!
Heck, wars and genocides could have been prevented as far back as ancient Egypt.
In fact, human nature being what it is, history will would have become pretty boring...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31323232</id>
	<title>Re:What Is Time?</title>
	<author>BoozeRunner</author>
	<datestamp>1267442460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>or . . . I propose that . .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.<br>
Time is an artificial construct of the Human mind that allows us to stop everything from happening all at once . . .</htmltext>
<tokenext>or .
. .
I propose that .
. .
Time is an artificial construct of the Human mind that allows us to stop everything from happening all at once .
. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or .
. .
I propose that .
. .
Time is an artificial construct of the Human mind that allows us to stop everything from happening all at once .
. .</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291638</id>
	<title>Re:Easy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267184460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>FORD:  Time is an illusion.  Lunchtime, doubly so.
ARTHUR:  Deep. Very deep. They have a page at the Readers' Digest for people like you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>FORD : Time is an illusion .
Lunchtime , doubly so .
ARTHUR : Deep .
Very deep .
They have a page at the Readers ' Digest for people like you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FORD:  Time is an illusion.
Lunchtime, doubly so.
ARTHUR:  Deep.
Very deep.
They have a page at the Readers' Digest for people like you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31294942</id>
	<title>Re:Time?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267210080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And CHANGE takes ENERGY. How else would be things changing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And CHANGE takes ENERGY .
How else would be things changing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And CHANGE takes ENERGY.
How else would be things changing?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292592</id>
	<title>Re:Time does not exist</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1267189680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is a book about that. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_End\_of\_Time\_(book)" title="wikipedia.org">The End of Time</a> [wikipedia.org] by Julian Barbour supposedly makes a similar assertion. I haven't gotten terribly far in the book as it is atrociously boring and monotone. (Some theoretical physicists really shouldn't be authors). Nonetheless, the topic is an interesting one to explore. I also recall Kaku having a discussion about various physical models of the universe simplifying when time is considered not to exist in his book Hyperspace. I am hoping he touches on the subject in his newer book Parallel Worlds.
<br> <br>
Finally, this particular press release is actually about this young man's book. <a href="http://us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9781101150863,00.html?From\_Eternity\_to\_Here\_Sean\_Carroll" title="penguingroup.com">From Eternity to Here</a> [penguingroup.com] was just released in January of 2010. I don't have a copy yet but I certainly do intend to add it to my reading list. Finally, Hawking's Brief History of Time should be an essential read for anyone interested in time. I also figure that reading some eastern thought literature such as the Tao Te Ching might bring a very different perspective to the table regarding time.
<br> <br>
As one might be able to tell, this topic is incredible to me. I've always found the concept of time to be a perplexing piece of crap that breaks people, kind of like religion. I didn't really mean for this post to turn into a list of references, but if anyone is interested in this particular entity in our universe, some of the words in the books I discussed might help. Also, any suggestions from others would be appreciated.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a book about that .
The End of Time [ wikipedia.org ] by Julian Barbour supposedly makes a similar assertion .
I have n't gotten terribly far in the book as it is atrociously boring and monotone .
( Some theoretical physicists really should n't be authors ) .
Nonetheless , the topic is an interesting one to explore .
I also recall Kaku having a discussion about various physical models of the universe simplifying when time is considered not to exist in his book Hyperspace .
I am hoping he touches on the subject in his newer book Parallel Worlds .
Finally , this particular press release is actually about this young man 's book .
From Eternity to Here [ penguingroup.com ] was just released in January of 2010 .
I do n't have a copy yet but I certainly do intend to add it to my reading list .
Finally , Hawking 's Brief History of Time should be an essential read for anyone interested in time .
I also figure that reading some eastern thought literature such as the Tao Te Ching might bring a very different perspective to the table regarding time .
As one might be able to tell , this topic is incredible to me .
I 've always found the concept of time to be a perplexing piece of crap that breaks people , kind of like religion .
I did n't really mean for this post to turn into a list of references , but if anyone is interested in this particular entity in our universe , some of the words in the books I discussed might help .
Also , any suggestions from others would be appreciated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a book about that.
The End of Time [wikipedia.org] by Julian Barbour supposedly makes a similar assertion.
I haven't gotten terribly far in the book as it is atrociously boring and monotone.
(Some theoretical physicists really shouldn't be authors).
Nonetheless, the topic is an interesting one to explore.
I also recall Kaku having a discussion about various physical models of the universe simplifying when time is considered not to exist in his book Hyperspace.
I am hoping he touches on the subject in his newer book Parallel Worlds.
Finally, this particular press release is actually about this young man's book.
From Eternity to Here [penguingroup.com] was just released in January of 2010.
I don't have a copy yet but I certainly do intend to add it to my reading list.
Finally, Hawking's Brief History of Time should be an essential read for anyone interested in time.
I also figure that reading some eastern thought literature such as the Tao Te Ching might bring a very different perspective to the table regarding time.
As one might be able to tell, this topic is incredible to me.
I've always found the concept of time to be a perplexing piece of crap that breaks people, kind of like religion.
I didn't really mean for this post to turn into a list of references, but if anyone is interested in this particular entity in our universe, some of the words in the books I discussed might help.
Also, any suggestions from others would be appreciated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293088</id>
	<title>Time is...</title>
	<author>v(*\_*)vvvv</author>
	<datestamp>1267192500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Time is the gap between observation and comprehension.<br>Time is the children of parents.<br>Time is the helplessness that ensues, when you realize what you cannot do over.</p><p>And so on and so forth...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time is the gap between observation and comprehension.Time is the children of parents.Time is the helplessness that ensues , when you realize what you can not do over.And so on and so forth.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time is the gap between observation and comprehension.Time is the children of parents.Time is the helplessness that ensues, when you realize what you cannot do over.And so on and so forth...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31304670</id>
	<title>Re:Time Travel</title>
	<author>PiSkyHi</author>
	<datestamp>1267363080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Please don't hurt my children!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please do n't hurt my children !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please don't hurt my children!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292888</id>
	<title>I Wonder?</title>
	<author>LifesABeach</author>
	<datestamp>1267191120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What would Newtonian Mechanics be like if it were seriously reconfigured to having Time as a constant of 1?  Interesting conjecture this is...</htmltext>
<tokenext>What would Newtonian Mechanics be like if it were seriously reconfigured to having Time as a constant of 1 ?
Interesting conjecture this is.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What would Newtonian Mechanics be like if it were seriously reconfigured to having Time as a constant of 1?
Interesting conjecture this is...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31294116</id>
	<title>Re:Time travel to the past and Uncle Rico moments.</title>
	<author>osgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1267200120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This was the day that you hit your head on the side of the toilet and thought up the flux capacitor?</p><p>I'll go get us a Delorean.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This was the day that you hit your head on the side of the toilet and thought up the flux capacitor ? I 'll go get us a Delorean .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was the day that you hit your head on the side of the toilet and thought up the flux capacitor?I'll go get us a Delorean.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292354</id>
	<title>Photons have no time.</title>
	<author>mestar</author>
	<datestamp>1267188120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I would like to have explained is why photons have no time.  Since they travel with the speed of light, from their perspective, they come anywhere instantly.  It's as if two points in space get connected at that time.  Also, from their perspective, the whole universe gets contracted into a giant vertical pancake.  Yet we somehow measure that they travel for some time.  What is going on there?</p><p>Also, what's with the entropy in a single event, lets say that two electrons "colide", lets say that a photon is created, then absorbed in the other electron. Does this increase entropy or not?  Can this be answered without mention gases?  At what point some stuff becomes gas?  5 particles or more?  Does that mean that time direction only exists if you look at more than 2-3 particles?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I would like to have explained is why photons have no time .
Since they travel with the speed of light , from their perspective , they come anywhere instantly .
It 's as if two points in space get connected at that time .
Also , from their perspective , the whole universe gets contracted into a giant vertical pancake .
Yet we somehow measure that they travel for some time .
What is going on there ? Also , what 's with the entropy in a single event , lets say that two electrons " colide " , lets say that a photon is created , then absorbed in the other electron .
Does this increase entropy or not ?
Can this be answered without mention gases ?
At what point some stuff becomes gas ?
5 particles or more ?
Does that mean that time direction only exists if you look at more than 2-3 particles ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I would like to have explained is why photons have no time.
Since they travel with the speed of light, from their perspective, they come anywhere instantly.
It's as if two points in space get connected at that time.
Also, from their perspective, the whole universe gets contracted into a giant vertical pancake.
Yet we somehow measure that they travel for some time.
What is going on there?Also, what's with the entropy in a single event, lets say that two electrons "colide", lets say that a photon is created, then absorbed in the other electron.
Does this increase entropy or not?
Can this be answered without mention gases?
At what point some stuff becomes gas?
5 particles or more?
Does that mean that time direction only exists if you look at more than 2-3 particles?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31449594</id>
	<title>Re:Sean Carroll's "Real Rules for Time Travelers"</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1268389260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An article that starts with the time travel &ldquo;paradox&rdquo; as if it were an unsolvable problem, is already an epic fail and not worth the read.</p><p>It&rsquo;s so simple to cleat the &ldquo;paradox&rdquo; that I thought everybody would know it by now:<br>If you go back, you walk back on your simple time line.<br>If you change something back then, you create a <em>separate</em> branch line.<br>Then you can only walk forward in that branch anymore. You can never go back to the old branch. Ever.<br>And because of that, your origin branch can not collide with your current branch, and there is no paradox.<br>Dead simple. Plainly obvious.</p><p>Quantum physics completely allow this model. The multiverse theories are also based on that allowance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An article that starts with the time travel    paradox    as if it were an unsolvable problem , is already an epic fail and not worth the read.It    s so simple to cleat the    paradox    that I thought everybody would know it by now : If you go back , you walk back on your simple time line.If you change something back then , you create a separate branch line.Then you can only walk forward in that branch anymore .
You can never go back to the old branch .
Ever.And because of that , your origin branch can not collide with your current branch , and there is no paradox.Dead simple .
Plainly obvious.Quantum physics completely allow this model .
The multiverse theories are also based on that allowance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An article that starts with the time travel “paradox” as if it were an unsolvable problem, is already an epic fail and not worth the read.It’s so simple to cleat the “paradox” that I thought everybody would know it by now:If you go back, you walk back on your simple time line.If you change something back then, you create a separate branch line.Then you can only walk forward in that branch anymore.
You can never go back to the old branch.
Ever.And because of that, your origin branch can not collide with your current branch, and there is no paradox.Dead simple.
Plainly obvious.Quantum physics completely allow this model.
The multiverse theories are also based on that allowance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292114</id>
	<title>Re:[...]you can't turn an omelet into an egg.</title>
	<author>astroroach</author>
	<datestamp>1267186980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Feeding the omelet to a chicken would result in Cannibal Chickens - that's Just Wrong. Besides, it would probably lead to Zombie Cannibal Chickens in the near future, and we have enough existential risks to worry about already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Feeding the omelet to a chicken would result in Cannibal Chickens - that 's Just Wrong .
Besides , it would probably lead to Zombie Cannibal Chickens in the near future , and we have enough existential risks to worry about already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Feeding the omelet to a chicken would result in Cannibal Chickens - that's Just Wrong.
Besides, it would probably lead to Zombie Cannibal Chickens in the near future, and we have enough existential risks to worry about already.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293072</id>
	<title>Re:Time does not exist</title>
	<author>xactuary</author>
	<datestamp>1267192380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Consider, fellow Slashdotters, time being empty of any independent existence; same with the past, future, birth and death. The Buddha said:<br> <br>

Thus shall ye think of all this fleeting world:<br>
A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream:<br>
A flash of lightning in a summer cloud,<br>
A flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream.<br>
<br>
-- The Diamond Sutra</htmltext>
<tokenext>Consider , fellow Slashdotters , time being empty of any independent existence ; same with the past , future , birth and death .
The Buddha said : Thus shall ye think of all this fleeting world : A star at dawn , a bubble in a stream : A flash of lightning in a summer cloud , A flickering lamp , a phantom , and a dream .
-- The Diamond Sutra</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Consider, fellow Slashdotters, time being empty of any independent existence; same with the past, future, birth and death.
The Buddha said: 

Thus shall ye think of all this fleeting world:
A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream:
A flash of lightning in a summer cloud,
A flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream.
-- The Diamond Sutra</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31304694</id>
	<title>Re:Timeline</title>
	<author>PiSkyHi</author>
	<datestamp>1267363380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I knew you were going to say that!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I knew you were going to say that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I knew you were going to say that!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31299314</id>
	<title>Re:My head hurts....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267262580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>uhm... probability?<br>if you increase the numbers you have to guess to win the lottery, your winning probability decreases.<br>you just described randomness, not time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>uhm... probability ? if you increase the numbers you have to guess to win the lottery , your winning probability decreases.you just described randomness , not time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>uhm... probability?if you increase the numbers you have to guess to win the lottery, your winning probability decreases.you just described randomness, not time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293608</id>
	<title>Re:Time does not exist</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1267195980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Prove me wrong.</p><p>The future obviously does not exist.  The past?  Doesn't exist either.  Hence, only this present moment exists.</p><p>You can't even prove that the past <i>existed</i>.  The only thing we have is present-moment memories, etc.  I remember typing "Prove me wrong" but my memory is hardly reliable.  If thirty seconds ago you spilled milk on your pants, all you have now is wet, soggy pants, not any "chain of events".  Even if you filmed it, all you have is the present-moment series of images, not some actual piece of the past.</p><p>Only this present moment exists.  All else is wild speculation and fantasy.  Time does not exist.</p></div><p>And this is why Philosophy students have a bad rep. Some think that a semantic argument somehow creates a truth about the world. In the meantime, the rest of the world just continues to use words the way that they were intended to be used.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Prove me wrong.The future obviously does not exist .
The past ?
Does n't exist either .
Hence , only this present moment exists.You ca n't even prove that the past existed .
The only thing we have is present-moment memories , etc .
I remember typing " Prove me wrong " but my memory is hardly reliable .
If thirty seconds ago you spilled milk on your pants , all you have now is wet , soggy pants , not any " chain of events " .
Even if you filmed it , all you have is the present-moment series of images , not some actual piece of the past.Only this present moment exists .
All else is wild speculation and fantasy .
Time does not exist.And this is why Philosophy students have a bad rep. Some think that a semantic argument somehow creates a truth about the world .
In the meantime , the rest of the world just continues to use words the way that they were intended to be used .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Prove me wrong.The future obviously does not exist.
The past?
Doesn't exist either.
Hence, only this present moment exists.You can't even prove that the past existed.
The only thing we have is present-moment memories, etc.
I remember typing "Prove me wrong" but my memory is hardly reliable.
If thirty seconds ago you spilled milk on your pants, all you have now is wet, soggy pants, not any "chain of events".
Even if you filmed it, all you have is the present-moment series of images, not some actual piece of the past.Only this present moment exists.
All else is wild speculation and fantasy.
Time does not exist.And this is why Philosophy students have a bad rep. Some think that a semantic argument somehow creates a truth about the world.
In the meantime, the rest of the world just continues to use words the way that they were intended to be used.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291892</id>
	<title>Time flies like an arrow;</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267185900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>fruit flies like a banana.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>fruit flies like a banana .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fruit flies like a banana.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31300494</id>
	<title>Re:Timeline</title>
	<author>mAineAc</author>
	<datestamp>1267273800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was in a very bad accident about 20 years ago. I was in a motorcycle accident and went headfirst into a railroad track without a helmet. I was pretty messed up for quite a while. I was in a coma for 5 days in the hospital. I had an experience from this that I thought couldn't possibly have happened to anyone else before and after some research it has happened a few times. I felt that in that five days I was in that coma that I had lived my whole life, then woke up. After this I messed up for a long time, on top of that I quit drinking, smoking, drugs and even went vegetarian. But during the first several years after this accident I was experiencing deja vu all the time. I had a condition that they called chronic deja vu. I don't know if it had a more scientific name or not. But everything I did, everywhere I went I knew I did it before. This was every day this was happening to me all day. It was really freaky living like that. I couldn't tell what was going to happen, but everything I did, I knew I already did it. It is now over 20 years later and I still experience times of strong deja vu, but it doesn't affect me like it used to. I am pretty sure that I did not live my whole life during those 5 days while I was in a coma, I do question time all the time and wonder if it was possible. I always wanted to get hypnotized or something to be regressed to that time to see if anything funky happens or if I might have some insight into my future.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was in a very bad accident about 20 years ago .
I was in a motorcycle accident and went headfirst into a railroad track without a helmet .
I was pretty messed up for quite a while .
I was in a coma for 5 days in the hospital .
I had an experience from this that I thought could n't possibly have happened to anyone else before and after some research it has happened a few times .
I felt that in that five days I was in that coma that I had lived my whole life , then woke up .
After this I messed up for a long time , on top of that I quit drinking , smoking , drugs and even went vegetarian .
But during the first several years after this accident I was experiencing deja vu all the time .
I had a condition that they called chronic deja vu .
I do n't know if it had a more scientific name or not .
But everything I did , everywhere I went I knew I did it before .
This was every day this was happening to me all day .
It was really freaky living like that .
I could n't tell what was going to happen , but everything I did , I knew I already did it .
It is now over 20 years later and I still experience times of strong deja vu , but it does n't affect me like it used to .
I am pretty sure that I did not live my whole life during those 5 days while I was in a coma , I do question time all the time and wonder if it was possible .
I always wanted to get hypnotized or something to be regressed to that time to see if anything funky happens or if I might have some insight into my future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was in a very bad accident about 20 years ago.
I was in a motorcycle accident and went headfirst into a railroad track without a helmet.
I was pretty messed up for quite a while.
I was in a coma for 5 days in the hospital.
I had an experience from this that I thought couldn't possibly have happened to anyone else before and after some research it has happened a few times.
I felt that in that five days I was in that coma that I had lived my whole life, then woke up.
After this I messed up for a long time, on top of that I quit drinking, smoking, drugs and even went vegetarian.
But during the first several years after this accident I was experiencing deja vu all the time.
I had a condition that they called chronic deja vu.
I don't know if it had a more scientific name or not.
But everything I did, everywhere I went I knew I did it before.
This was every day this was happening to me all day.
It was really freaky living like that.
I couldn't tell what was going to happen, but everything I did, I knew I already did it.
It is now over 20 years later and I still experience times of strong deja vu, but it doesn't affect me like it used to.
I am pretty sure that I did not live my whole life during those 5 days while I was in a coma, I do question time all the time and wonder if it was possible.
I always wanted to get hypnotized or something to be regressed to that time to see if anything funky happens or if I might have some insight into my future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31299222</id>
	<title>Re:[...]you can't turn an omelet into an egg.</title>
	<author>unknownroad</author>
	<datestamp>1267261860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Clever sig, but isn't it out of date now?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Clever sig , but is n't it out of date now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clever sig, but isn't it out of date now?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292138</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1267187100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>In Slaughterhouse Five, Vonnegut advances the theory that the perception of time is simply a limitation built into us - that everything from all times simply exists, but we can only sample it monotonically (like a flat-bed scanner head moving along).
<p>
If the universe were deterministic, then time is essentially meaningless even if it exists, since the start state and dynamics are all you need to know.  And if the dynamics are information-preserving, any state (not just the start state) suffices.  Apparently there are even deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics, although I really don't know what that means.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Slaughterhouse Five , Vonnegut advances the theory that the perception of time is simply a limitation built into us - that everything from all times simply exists , but we can only sample it monotonically ( like a flat-bed scanner head moving along ) .
If the universe were deterministic , then time is essentially meaningless even if it exists , since the start state and dynamics are all you need to know .
And if the dynamics are information-preserving , any state ( not just the start state ) suffices .
Apparently there are even deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics , although I really do n't know what that means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Slaughterhouse Five, Vonnegut advances the theory that the perception of time is simply a limitation built into us - that everything from all times simply exists, but we can only sample it monotonically (like a flat-bed scanner head moving along).
If the universe were deterministic, then time is essentially meaningless even if it exists, since the start state and dynamics are all you need to know.
And if the dynamics are information-preserving, any state (not just the start state) suffices.
Apparently there are even deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics, although I really don't know what that means.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31299558</id>
	<title>Omelets</title>
	<author>incubbus13</author>
	<datestamp>1267264440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember kids, you can't break a few eggs without making an omelet.</p><p>K.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember kids , you ca n't break a few eggs without making an omelet.K .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember kids, you can't break a few eggs without making an omelet.K.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31296570</id>
	<title>Re:[...]you can't turn an omelet into an egg.</title>
	<author>ozbird</author>
	<datestamp>1267285320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're thinking of geese; I haven't heard of chickens being feed through a pipe.<blockquote><div><p> <tt>grain | geese &gt; foie\_gras</tt></p></div> </blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're thinking of geese ; I have n't heard of chickens being feed through a pipe .
grain | geese &gt; foie \ _gras</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're thinking of geese; I haven't heard of chickens being feed through a pipe.
grain | geese &gt; foie\_gras 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291652</id>
	<title>What Is Time?</title>
	<author>Monkey\_Genius</author>
	<datestamp>1267184520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Time is an artificial construct of the Human mind that allows us to mark our pitiful existence in an uncaring universe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Time is an artificial construct of the Human mind that allows us to mark our pitiful existence in an uncaring universe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time is an artificial construct of the Human mind that allows us to mark our pitiful existence in an uncaring universe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31312668</id>
	<title>Re:My head hurts....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267473720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Our lives and cultures are nothing but artifacts of trying to express something that we have no proper words for, or else everyone would be living in peace and harmony, or at least eating well.</p><p>The difference between the scales is that we can't see shit but what near directly preserves our DNA long enough for it to get competitively reproduced. Lowly beasts like ourselves probably aren't meant to understand the finer points of existence, thus all the hilarity and mysticism when we try to elevate ourselves. That's why I keep wondering why people haven't yet figured out a way simply not to die. Seems it'd be the best way to finally solve all the mysteries, rather than trying to preserve our knowledge through various media that our successors have to relearn. At some point people aren't going to be able to relearn everything and we'll be stuck in a rut, reaching our biological limits. Sadly we're already to the point where we acknowledge that the best we can do before we die is to push things a little farther forward, never really discovering anything. Theory feeds theory, one becomes more accepted as the last becomes more disputed, generation after generation.</p><p>I think time travel is a thinly-veiled dream of immortality, and is why it fascinates us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Our lives and cultures are nothing but artifacts of trying to express something that we have no proper words for , or else everyone would be living in peace and harmony , or at least eating well.The difference between the scales is that we ca n't see shit but what near directly preserves our DNA long enough for it to get competitively reproduced .
Lowly beasts like ourselves probably are n't meant to understand the finer points of existence , thus all the hilarity and mysticism when we try to elevate ourselves .
That 's why I keep wondering why people have n't yet figured out a way simply not to die .
Seems it 'd be the best way to finally solve all the mysteries , rather than trying to preserve our knowledge through various media that our successors have to relearn .
At some point people are n't going to be able to relearn everything and we 'll be stuck in a rut , reaching our biological limits .
Sadly we 're already to the point where we acknowledge that the best we can do before we die is to push things a little farther forward , never really discovering anything .
Theory feeds theory , one becomes more accepted as the last becomes more disputed , generation after generation.I think time travel is a thinly-veiled dream of immortality , and is why it fascinates us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our lives and cultures are nothing but artifacts of trying to express something that we have no proper words for, or else everyone would be living in peace and harmony, or at least eating well.The difference between the scales is that we can't see shit but what near directly preserves our DNA long enough for it to get competitively reproduced.
Lowly beasts like ourselves probably aren't meant to understand the finer points of existence, thus all the hilarity and mysticism when we try to elevate ourselves.
That's why I keep wondering why people haven't yet figured out a way simply not to die.
Seems it'd be the best way to finally solve all the mysteries, rather than trying to preserve our knowledge through various media that our successors have to relearn.
At some point people aren't going to be able to relearn everything and we'll be stuck in a rut, reaching our biological limits.
Sadly we're already to the point where we acknowledge that the best we can do before we die is to push things a little farther forward, never really discovering anything.
Theory feeds theory, one becomes more accepted as the last becomes more disputed, generation after generation.I think time travel is a thinly-veiled dream of immortality, and is why it fascinates us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292478</id>
	<title>Re:Timeline</title>
	<author>Bysshe</author>
	<datestamp>1267188780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well there's another explanation too. IT can also be caused by a direct encoding into long term memory of a particular experience, bypassing the short term memory loop. This makes you "feel" as if you're recalling something.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well there 's another explanation too .
IT can also be caused by a direct encoding into long term memory of a particular experience , bypassing the short term memory loop .
This makes you " feel " as if you 're recalling something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well there's another explanation too.
IT can also be caused by a direct encoding into long term memory of a particular experience, bypassing the short term memory loop.
This makes you "feel" as if you're recalling something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31294284</id>
	<title>Re:Time Travel</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267201980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am from the time travel get rich foundation and I want to offer you a business proposition,<br>If you sent us 100 dollars, we will keep it in a bank account as a long term investment, after a few centuries it will be have grow to a several millions of dollars when time travel has been invented, we will offer a time traveller 20\% of your investment as a payment for bringing back the rest of the account earnings to the present and give it to you</p><p>As not sensible person can let escape a opportunity like this we are sure that you are eager to send your money so we can make you rich</p><p>The sooner you send your 100$ the sooner you will be a millionaire, SEND IT NOW.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am from the time travel get rich foundation and I want to offer you a business proposition,If you sent us 100 dollars , we will keep it in a bank account as a long term investment , after a few centuries it will be have grow to a several millions of dollars when time travel has been invented , we will offer a time traveller 20 \ % of your investment as a payment for bringing back the rest of the account earnings to the present and give it to youAs not sensible person can let escape a opportunity like this we are sure that you are eager to send your money so we can make you richThe sooner you send your 100 $ the sooner you will be a millionaire , SEND IT NOW .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am from the time travel get rich foundation and I want to offer you a business proposition,If you sent us 100 dollars, we will keep it in a bank account as a long term investment, after a few centuries it will be have grow to a several millions of dollars when time travel has been invented, we will offer a time traveller 20\% of your investment as a payment for bringing back the rest of the account earnings to the present and give it to youAs not sensible person can let escape a opportunity like this we are sure that you are eager to send your money so we can make you richThe sooner you send your 100$ the sooner you will be a millionaire, SEND IT NOW.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292238</id>
	<title>The arrow of time..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267187520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is easy to understand - Data goes back in time and meets Mark Twain, who utters amazing one liners.  This is important so that we can get the TNG version of Spock and Kirk going back into the past and trying to juryrig some technobable.</p><p>Oh wait, you weren't referring to The Next Generation episode?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is easy to understand - Data goes back in time and meets Mark Twain , who utters amazing one liners .
This is important so that we can get the TNG version of Spock and Kirk going back into the past and trying to juryrig some technobable.Oh wait , you were n't referring to The Next Generation episode ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is easy to understand - Data goes back in time and meets Mark Twain, who utters amazing one liners.
This is important so that we can get the TNG version of Spock and Kirk going back into the past and trying to juryrig some technobable.Oh wait, you weren't referring to The Next Generation episode?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291758</id>
	<title>An old co-worker once told me..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267185060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Time is our word for every dimension that exists besides the first three... not sure how many there are though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Time is our word for every dimension that exists besides the first three... not sure how many there are though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time is our word for every dimension that exists besides the first three... not sure how many there are though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292550</id>
	<title>Re:Timeline</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1267189260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>How do you explain when it doesn't happen after the fact? For example there are times when I have a second or two advance warning. I know exactly what someone is going to say, and then they say it. I never know more than a few words, but I know exactly what those few words will be.</i></p><p>That is the interesting thing when the brain and mind come into play.</p><p>How would one be able to actually tell the difference between:</p><p>A)  You have a 'prediction' first, then that happens in reality next, and finally you think 'i predicted that!'</p><p>and</p><p>B)  First you hear what the other person said.  Next your brain/mind do some form of trickery so you THINK that you predicted what they said prior.</p><p>Note the time line of events between A and B are almost perfectly reversed, yet both will have the same identical effect on the observer in the end.</p><p>Taking things to a totally nonsensical example,  if I read a book to you and you enjoyed it first, then second I modified your memories so you now have the memory of reading that book long ago.<br>How could you tell?</p><p>Until we learn more about the physical structure of the brain, and possibly (probably) the functions of the mind, we really can't tell.</p><p>Now, I'm not at all saying this is actually what happened to you with Deja Vu!<br>Just posing the question of how one can know either way when the device (brain) we are using to measure, is the very device being modified constantly in real time during the measurement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you explain when it does n't happen after the fact ?
For example there are times when I have a second or two advance warning .
I know exactly what someone is going to say , and then they say it .
I never know more than a few words , but I know exactly what those few words will be.That is the interesting thing when the brain and mind come into play.How would one be able to actually tell the difference between : A ) You have a 'prediction ' first , then that happens in reality next , and finally you think 'i predicted that !
'andB ) First you hear what the other person said .
Next your brain/mind do some form of trickery so you THINK that you predicted what they said prior.Note the time line of events between A and B are almost perfectly reversed , yet both will have the same identical effect on the observer in the end.Taking things to a totally nonsensical example , if I read a book to you and you enjoyed it first , then second I modified your memories so you now have the memory of reading that book long ago.How could you tell ? Until we learn more about the physical structure of the brain , and possibly ( probably ) the functions of the mind , we really ca n't tell.Now , I 'm not at all saying this is actually what happened to you with Deja Vu ! Just posing the question of how one can know either way when the device ( brain ) we are using to measure , is the very device being modified constantly in real time during the measurement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you explain when it doesn't happen after the fact?
For example there are times when I have a second or two advance warning.
I know exactly what someone is going to say, and then they say it.
I never know more than a few words, but I know exactly what those few words will be.That is the interesting thing when the brain and mind come into play.How would one be able to actually tell the difference between:A)  You have a 'prediction' first, then that happens in reality next, and finally you think 'i predicted that!
'andB)  First you hear what the other person said.
Next your brain/mind do some form of trickery so you THINK that you predicted what they said prior.Note the time line of events between A and B are almost perfectly reversed, yet both will have the same identical effect on the observer in the end.Taking things to a totally nonsensical example,  if I read a book to you and you enjoyed it first, then second I modified your memories so you now have the memory of reading that book long ago.How could you tell?Until we learn more about the physical structure of the brain, and possibly (probably) the functions of the mind, we really can't tell.Now, I'm not at all saying this is actually what happened to you with Deja Vu!Just posing the question of how one can know either way when the device (brain) we are using to measure, is the very device being modified constantly in real time during the measurement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292210</id>
	<title>It is easy to prove that time does not exist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267187400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It&rsquo;s very easy to prove that time is abstract. Time cannot change because changing time is self-referential. Why? Because velocity in time would have to be expressed as v = dt/dt, which is nonsensical. It&rsquo;s that simple, folks. But I am tilting at windmills, I know.</p><p>The abstract nature of time is the reason that a time dimension is bunk and that nothing can move in spacetime, a revelation that always comes as a surprise to most relativists. But here it is from the mouth of a relativist:</p><blockquote><div><p>&ldquo;There is no dynamics within space-time itself: nothing ever moves therein; nothing happens; nothing changes. [...] In particular, one does not think of particles as &ldquo;moving through&rdquo; space-time, or as &ldquo;following along&rdquo; their world-lines. Rather, particles are just &ldquo;in&rdquo; space-time, once and for all, and the world-line represents, all at once the complete life history of the particle.&rdquo;</p></div></blockquote><p>From <a href="http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/788.ctl" title="uchicago.edu" rel="nofollow">Relativity from A to B</a> [uchicago.edu] by Prof. Robert Geroch, U. of Chicago</p><p>By the way, physics is about to enter a revolutionary phase because <a href="http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2009/09/physics-problem-with-motion-part-i.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">Aristotle was right about motion</a> [blogspot.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It    s very easy to prove that time is abstract .
Time can not change because changing time is self-referential .
Why ? Because velocity in time would have to be expressed as v = dt/dt , which is nonsensical .
It    s that simple , folks .
But I am tilting at windmills , I know.The abstract nature of time is the reason that a time dimension is bunk and that nothing can move in spacetime , a revelation that always comes as a surprise to most relativists .
But here it is from the mouth of a relativist :    There is no dynamics within space-time itself : nothing ever moves therein ; nothing happens ; nothing changes .
[ ... ] In particular , one does not think of particles as    moving through    space-time , or as    following along    their world-lines .
Rather , particles are just    in    space-time , once and for all , and the world-line represents , all at once the complete life history of the particle.    From Relativity from A to B [ uchicago.edu ] by Prof. Robert Geroch , U. of ChicagoBy the way , physics is about to enter a revolutionary phase because Aristotle was right about motion [ blogspot.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It’s very easy to prove that time is abstract.
Time cannot change because changing time is self-referential.
Why? Because velocity in time would have to be expressed as v = dt/dt, which is nonsensical.
It’s that simple, folks.
But I am tilting at windmills, I know.The abstract nature of time is the reason that a time dimension is bunk and that nothing can move in spacetime, a revelation that always comes as a surprise to most relativists.
But here it is from the mouth of a relativist:“There is no dynamics within space-time itself: nothing ever moves therein; nothing happens; nothing changes.
[...] In particular, one does not think of particles as “moving through” space-time, or as “following along” their world-lines.
Rather, particles are just “in” space-time, once and for all, and the world-line represents, all at once the complete life history of the particle.”From Relativity from A to B [uchicago.edu] by Prof. Robert Geroch, U. of ChicagoBy the way, physics is about to enter a revolutionary phase because Aristotle was right about motion [blogspot.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293228</id>
	<title>Not really a glitch</title>
	<author>rxan</author>
	<datestamp>1267193400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not necessarily a glitch. The brain just always tries to take the path of least resistance. Consider this:</p><p>You see a ball, and you've recognized a ball before, so it must be another ball that you're seeing right now.</p><p>Now consider people trying to spot the Loch Ness monster on that very lake in Scotland. People who come to the lake often see shapes in the distance and interpret those as the monster. But really, the brain is just trying to match those shapes to the pattern that represents the Loch Ness monster.</p><p>Deja Vu is no different. The brain senses something and wants to recognize it as something it already knows. Dega Vu is just an effect of the brains pattern recognition system.</p><p>Notice how people never have Deja Vu of extraordinary events? It's really no wonder why that is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not necessarily a glitch .
The brain just always tries to take the path of least resistance .
Consider this : You see a ball , and you 've recognized a ball before , so it must be another ball that you 're seeing right now.Now consider people trying to spot the Loch Ness monster on that very lake in Scotland .
People who come to the lake often see shapes in the distance and interpret those as the monster .
But really , the brain is just trying to match those shapes to the pattern that represents the Loch Ness monster.Deja Vu is no different .
The brain senses something and wants to recognize it as something it already knows .
Dega Vu is just an effect of the brains pattern recognition system.Notice how people never have Deja Vu of extraordinary events ?
It 's really no wonder why that is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not necessarily a glitch.
The brain just always tries to take the path of least resistance.
Consider this:You see a ball, and you've recognized a ball before, so it must be another ball that you're seeing right now.Now consider people trying to spot the Loch Ness monster on that very lake in Scotland.
People who come to the lake often see shapes in the distance and interpret those as the monster.
But really, the brain is just trying to match those shapes to the pattern that represents the Loch Ness monster.Deja Vu is no different.
The brain senses something and wants to recognize it as something it already knows.
Dega Vu is just an effect of the brains pattern recognition system.Notice how people never have Deja Vu of extraordinary events?
It's really no wonder why that is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292588</id>
	<title>Re:[...]you can't turn an omelet into an egg.</title>
	<author>RogueSeven</author>
	<datestamp>1267189680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>feed that omelet to a chicken, and then take the resulting egg.</p></div><p>I'm no biologist, but your understanding of chicken reproduction seems flawed!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>feed that omelet to a chicken , and then take the resulting egg.I 'm no biologist , but your understanding of chicken reproduction seems flawed !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>feed that omelet to a chicken, and then take the resulting egg.I'm no biologist, but your understanding of chicken reproduction seems flawed!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291952</id>
	<title>The simple answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267186140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Time is what you are wasting right now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time is what you are wasting right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time is what you are wasting right now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293976</id>
	<title>time is a crook.</title>
	<author>Ralph Spoilsport</author>
	<datestamp>1267198800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"Time, time, what is time? Swiss manufacture it. French hoard it. Italians squander it. Americans say it is money. Hindus say it does not exist. You know what I say? I say time is a crook." </i>
<p>
- - From the movie "Beat the Devil" (1954), directed by John Huston,
</p><p>
written by John Huston and Truman Capote</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Time , time , what is time ?
Swiss manufacture it .
French hoard it .
Italians squander it .
Americans say it is money .
Hindus say it does not exist .
You know what I say ?
I say time is a crook .
" - - From the movie " Beat the Devil " ( 1954 ) , directed by John Huston , written by John Huston and Truman Capote</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Time, time, what is time?
Swiss manufacture it.
French hoard it.
Italians squander it.
Americans say it is money.
Hindus say it does not exist.
You know what I say?
I say time is a crook.
" 

- - From the movie "Beat the Devil" (1954), directed by John Huston,

written by John Huston and Truman Capote</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31300296</id>
	<title>Re:[...]you can't turn an omelet into an egg.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267271640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, if you want mad chicken disease.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , if you want mad chicken disease .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, if you want mad chicken disease.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31295054</id>
	<title>Re:Time travel to the past and Uncle Rico moments.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267212000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Easier:  Steal her from her husband, adopt her kids.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Easier : Steal her from her husband , adopt her kids .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Easier:  Steal her from her husband, adopt her kids.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291868</id>
	<title>Re:[...]you can't turn an omelet into an egg.</title>
	<author>JustOK</author>
	<datestamp>1267185720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>automate it with a shell script</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>automate it with a shell script</tokentext>
<sentencetext>automate it with a shell script</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31295898</id>
	<title>Turning an omelette into an egg</title>
	<author>Dollyknot</author>
	<datestamp>1267271520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can turn an omelette into an egg - just feed the omelette to a hen and she will do it for you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can turn an omelette into an egg - just feed the omelette to a hen and she will do it for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can turn an omelette into an egg - just feed the omelette to a hen and she will do it for you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31295396</id>
	<title>Re:My head hurts....</title>
	<author>f3r</author>
	<datestamp>1267303680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No.<p>
At our scale things are exactly the same, that is, fully deterministic. However, the amount of information needed to revert the evolution of one particle is small, while to revert the evolution of the egg you need N^n, with N the amount of "degrees of freedom" (technically, the dimension of its Hilbert space) of one of the egg's particles, and n around Avogadro's number (total number of particles in one egg). To be simplistic, let's say that one particle has 10 "degrees of freedom", and Avogadro's number is around 6E23~10^24, so this makes a total of 10^10^24 functions of time that you MUST fully record in order to be able to revert the egg's "trajectory".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
At our scale things are exactly the same , that is , fully deterministic .
However , the amount of information needed to revert the evolution of one particle is small , while to revert the evolution of the egg you need N ^ n , with N the amount of " degrees of freedom " ( technically , the dimension of its Hilbert space ) of one of the egg 's particles , and n around Avogadro 's number ( total number of particles in one egg ) .
To be simplistic , let 's say that one particle has 10 " degrees of freedom " , and Avogadro 's number is around 6E23 ~ 10 ^ 24 , so this makes a total of 10 ^ 10 ^ 24 functions of time that you MUST fully record in order to be able to revert the egg 's " trajectory " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
At our scale things are exactly the same, that is, fully deterministic.
However, the amount of information needed to revert the evolution of one particle is small, while to revert the evolution of the egg you need N^n, with N the amount of "degrees of freedom" (technically, the dimension of its Hilbert space) of one of the egg's particles, and n around Avogadro's number (total number of particles in one egg).
To be simplistic, let's say that one particle has 10 "degrees of freedom", and Avogadro's number is around 6E23~10^24, so this makes a total of 10^10^24 functions of time that you MUST fully record in order to be able to revert the egg's "trajectory".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291962</id>
	<title>Re:easy</title>
	<author>twidarkling</author>
	<datestamp>1267186260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wrong. Time isn't bi! It doesn't go both ways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong .
Time is n't bi !
It does n't go both ways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong.
Time isn't bi!
It doesn't go both ways.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292142</id>
	<title>Re:easy</title>
	<author>eepok</author>
	<datestamp>1267187160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>time is a description of change or lack thereof.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>time is a description of change or lack thereof .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>time is a description of change or lack thereof.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291920</id>
	<title>Fred Hoyle would be pleased</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1267186020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sounds like the steady state theory. Back then Hoyle was pushing it the idea was that mass comes from nowhere continuously. In this idea entropy just appears in a quiet universe for no reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds like the steady state theory .
Back then Hoyle was pushing it the idea was that mass comes from nowhere continuously .
In this idea entropy just appears in a quiet universe for no reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds like the steady state theory.
Back then Hoyle was pushing it the idea was that mass comes from nowhere continuously.
In this idea entropy just appears in a quiet universe for no reason.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31297036</id>
	<title>Re:Time does not exist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267290360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Present is a hole in all are hearts.
The big bang wasn't a the beginning of anything,  it was the sound of a door being welded shut behind us. We lost, so we end up here, endlessly dying, remembering nothing.
All quotations below are verbal quotes by Kurt G&#246;del, as recorded by Hao Wang in his biography of G&#246;del, A Logical Journey, MIT Press, 1996.
"Time is no specific character of being.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I do not believe in the objectivity of time. The concept of Now never occurs in science itself<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....".  "It is a mistake to argue rather than report."</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Present is a hole in all are hearts .
The big bang was n't a the beginning of anything , it was the sound of a door being welded shut behind us .
We lost , so we end up here , endlessly dying , remembering nothing .
All quotations below are verbal quotes by Kurt G   del , as recorded by Hao Wang in his biography of G   del , A Logical Journey , MIT Press , 1996 .
" Time is no specific character of being .
... I do not believe in the objectivity of time .
The concept of Now never occurs in science itself .... " .
" It is a mistake to argue rather than report .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Present is a hole in all are hearts.
The big bang wasn't a the beginning of anything,  it was the sound of a door being welded shut behind us.
We lost, so we end up here, endlessly dying, remembering nothing.
All quotations below are verbal quotes by Kurt Gödel, as recorded by Hao Wang in his biography of Gödel, A Logical Journey, MIT Press, 1996.
"Time is no specific character of being.
... I do not believe in the objectivity of time.
The concept of Now never occurs in science itself ....".
"It is a mistake to argue rather than report.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31294322</id>
	<title>Re:Timeline</title>
	<author>DeadboltX</author>
	<datestamp>1267202280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>[citation needed]</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ citation needed ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[citation needed]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291986</id>
	<title>time has no arrow, spacetime does</title>
	<author>sweetser</author>
	<datestamp>1267186380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hello:
<p>Time will never have an arrow. Spacetime will, from the space part.  If you take Minkowski's advice, that one should only think about spacetime, not time or space, then Carroll's question is poorly formed.  It is good English, bad mathematical physics.  Since Minkowski's observation was based on work with special relativity, people presume is observation applies only for relativistic systems. Sorry, Nature is more consistent than that: one needs to think about spacetime always, even if it contributes squat. Newton's 2nd law can be written F = m (d/dt. 0, 0, 0)^2 (0, x, y, z).  What makes it classical are all the zeroes that appear in the spacetime operators.The handedness of times arrow comes from the space part whose contributions are stupidly small, but add up enough of them, and they are irreversible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hello : Time will never have an arrow .
Spacetime will , from the space part .
If you take Minkowski 's advice , that one should only think about spacetime , not time or space , then Carroll 's question is poorly formed .
It is good English , bad mathematical physics .
Since Minkowski 's observation was based on work with special relativity , people presume is observation applies only for relativistic systems .
Sorry , Nature is more consistent than that : one needs to think about spacetime always , even if it contributes squat .
Newton 's 2nd law can be written F = m ( d/dt .
0 , 0 , 0 ) ^ 2 ( 0 , x , y , z ) .
What makes it classical are all the zeroes that appear in the spacetime operators.The handedness of times arrow comes from the space part whose contributions are stupidly small , but add up enough of them , and they are irreversible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hello:
Time will never have an arrow.
Spacetime will, from the space part.
If you take Minkowski's advice, that one should only think about spacetime, not time or space, then Carroll's question is poorly formed.
It is good English, bad mathematical physics.
Since Minkowski's observation was based on work with special relativity, people presume is observation applies only for relativistic systems.
Sorry, Nature is more consistent than that: one needs to think about spacetime always, even if it contributes squat.
Newton's 2nd law can be written F = m (d/dt.
0, 0, 0)^2 (0, x, y, z).
What makes it classical are all the zeroes that appear in the spacetime operators.The handedness of times arrow comes from the space part whose contributions are stupidly small, but add up enough of them, and they are irreversible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293144</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>martin-boundary</author>
	<datestamp>1267192800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>  How would anyone know if time isn't always forward?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
In that case, why wouldn't you ask the other question? "How would anyone know if time isn't always backward?".
</p><p>
In a (macroscopically) reversible universe, half the inhabitants would be living "backwards" in time, or perhaps people would be living "forwards" for a while, then "backwards" for a while, etc. So there would be no logical reason to ask only why time goes forward, and the idea of time going forward would not be puzzling on its own.
</p><p>
So the anthropocentric solution to your question is: since people ask why time flows forward, it can't really be macroscopically reversible.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How would anyone know if time is n't always forward ?
In that case , why would n't you ask the other question ?
" How would anyone know if time is n't always backward ? " .
In a ( macroscopically ) reversible universe , half the inhabitants would be living " backwards " in time , or perhaps people would be living " forwards " for a while , then " backwards " for a while , etc .
So there would be no logical reason to ask only why time goes forward , and the idea of time going forward would not be puzzling on its own .
So the anthropocentric solution to your question is : since people ask why time flows forward , it ca n't really be macroscopically reversible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  How would anyone know if time isn't always forward?
In that case, why wouldn't you ask the other question?
"How would anyone know if time isn't always backward?".
In a (macroscopically) reversible universe, half the inhabitants would be living "backwards" in time, or perhaps people would be living "forwards" for a while, then "backwards" for a while, etc.
So there would be no logical reason to ask only why time goes forward, and the idea of time going forward would not be puzzling on its own.
So the anthropocentric solution to your question is: since people ask why time flows forward, it can't really be macroscopically reversible.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31295152</id>
	<title>Re:What Is Time?</title>
	<author>Xaduurv</author>
	<datestamp>1267213440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Time is a construct of only one of God's creatures; man. Just for today, be a sunflower." David Hyde Pierce.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Time is a construct of only one of God 's creatures ; man .
Just for today , be a sunflower .
" David Hyde Pierce .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Time is a construct of only one of God's creatures; man.
Just for today, be a sunflower.
" David Hyde Pierce.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292036</id>
	<title>Islamic view of "time"</title>
	<author>Chicken\_Kickers</author>
	<datestamp>1267186680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Islamic view of time and the universe in general is that what has happened, is happening and will happen has already been determined ("it is written"). What has happened can never be undone and this is mentioned many-many times in the Quran. This means that time travel is impossible. In fact, the belief in fate and predestination and accepting the outcome whether good or bad, is one of the core of <i>iman</i> or Belief. What is happening and what will happen also cannot be avoided. To some extent, mankind has the ability of self determination on the small scale but in the larger scheme of things, God had determined everything. For example, the time of death for a person is already determined(though we will not know it) even before birth and mankind could not avoid or add or subtract even 1 second to this. Similarly, the time of <i>Qiamat</i> or Armageddon where the entire universe will fold upon itself is also already determined. Many Muslim scholars have dwelt on this subject, particularly its impact on the concept of sin and reward. The Prophet Muhammad actually discourages too much dwelling on this matter because human minds could not fathom the will of God. God is not some bearded Caucasian with long hair and wearing a white robe. God exist outside of time and the universe and thus is unfathomable. "He" is nothing that any human mind could ever imagine or grasp any more than a bacterium in a petri dish could grasp the concept of a sentient human being.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Islamic view of time and the universe in general is that what has happened , is happening and will happen has already been determined ( " it is written " ) .
What has happened can never be undone and this is mentioned many-many times in the Quran .
This means that time travel is impossible .
In fact , the belief in fate and predestination and accepting the outcome whether good or bad , is one of the core of iman or Belief .
What is happening and what will happen also can not be avoided .
To some extent , mankind has the ability of self determination on the small scale but in the larger scheme of things , God had determined everything .
For example , the time of death for a person is already determined ( though we will not know it ) even before birth and mankind could not avoid or add or subtract even 1 second to this .
Similarly , the time of Qiamat or Armageddon where the entire universe will fold upon itself is also already determined .
Many Muslim scholars have dwelt on this subject , particularly its impact on the concept of sin and reward .
The Prophet Muhammad actually discourages too much dwelling on this matter because human minds could not fathom the will of God .
God is not some bearded Caucasian with long hair and wearing a white robe .
God exist outside of time and the universe and thus is unfathomable .
" He " is nothing that any human mind could ever imagine or grasp any more than a bacterium in a petri dish could grasp the concept of a sentient human being .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Islamic view of time and the universe in general is that what has happened, is happening and will happen has already been determined ("it is written").
What has happened can never be undone and this is mentioned many-many times in the Quran.
This means that time travel is impossible.
In fact, the belief in fate and predestination and accepting the outcome whether good or bad, is one of the core of iman or Belief.
What is happening and what will happen also cannot be avoided.
To some extent, mankind has the ability of self determination on the small scale but in the larger scheme of things, God had determined everything.
For example, the time of death for a person is already determined(though we will not know it) even before birth and mankind could not avoid or add or subtract even 1 second to this.
Similarly, the time of Qiamat or Armageddon where the entire universe will fold upon itself is also already determined.
Many Muslim scholars have dwelt on this subject, particularly its impact on the concept of sin and reward.
The Prophet Muhammad actually discourages too much dwelling on this matter because human minds could not fathom the will of God.
God is not some bearded Caucasian with long hair and wearing a white robe.
God exist outside of time and the universe and thus is unfathomable.
"He" is nothing that any human mind could ever imagine or grasp any more than a bacterium in a petri dish could grasp the concept of a sentient human being.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31297124</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267291260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"Chickens come into existence from corpses. They eat eggs and other strange matters through their bottoms, spitting off corns and always ending up as eggs themselves."</p><p>"Corn comes from chickens and other animals' mouth, ending up sucked into the earth by corn-eating vegetables."</p></div></blockquote><p>In addition to the other (tasteless) AC's comments, have a look at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backwards\_(Red\_Dwarf\_episode)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Red Dwarf "Backwards" episode</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Chickens come into existence from corpses .
They eat eggs and other strange matters through their bottoms , spitting off corns and always ending up as eggs themselves .
" " Corn comes from chickens and other animals ' mouth , ending up sucked into the earth by corn-eating vegetables .
" In addition to the other ( tasteless ) AC 's comments , have a look at Red Dwarf " Backwards " episode [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Chickens come into existence from corpses.
They eat eggs and other strange matters through their bottoms, spitting off corns and always ending up as eggs themselves.
""Corn comes from chickens and other animals' mouth, ending up sucked into the earth by corn-eating vegetables.
"In addition to the other (tasteless) AC's comments, have a look at Red Dwarf "Backwards" episode [wikipedia.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31299442</id>
	<title>Re:Photons have no time.</title>
	<author>Gerafix</author>
	<datestamp>1267263360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Doppler Effect isn't directly measuring the time they traveled but the distance the photons traveled. Since we know how far a photon travels in a given period of time we can extrapolate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Doppler Effect is n't directly measuring the time they traveled but the distance the photons traveled .
Since we know how far a photon travels in a given period of time we can extrapolate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doppler Effect isn't directly measuring the time they traveled but the distance the photons traveled.
Since we know how far a photon travels in a given period of time we can extrapolate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31295528</id>
	<title>Re:Time might flow backwards. . .</title>
	<author>f3r</author>
	<datestamp>1267262400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Time flows not, time is. Imagine a circle, and running along a circle while a parameter theta is changed. The circle is described by (or simply "is") x=R*cos(theta), y=R*sin(theta). Well, that circle is the universe, and theta is time. But the universe does not flow along time, nor time does flow (in order to flow, a verb, the thing flowing needs an external time, so time would be runnning through time(???))<p>
So, if the simple resolution is: the universe is, time is illusion, then the new question is: why do human states of consciusness flow?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time flows not , time is .
Imagine a circle , and running along a circle while a parameter theta is changed .
The circle is described by ( or simply " is " ) x = R * cos ( theta ) , y = R * sin ( theta ) .
Well , that circle is the universe , and theta is time .
But the universe does not flow along time , nor time does flow ( in order to flow , a verb , the thing flowing needs an external time , so time would be runnning through time ( ? ? ?
) ) So , if the simple resolution is : the universe is , time is illusion , then the new question is : why do human states of consciusness flow ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time flows not, time is.
Imagine a circle, and running along a circle while a parameter theta is changed.
The circle is described by (or simply "is") x=R*cos(theta), y=R*sin(theta).
Well, that circle is the universe, and theta is time.
But the universe does not flow along time, nor time does flow (in order to flow, a verb, the thing flowing needs an external time, so time would be runnning through time(???
))
So, if the simple resolution is: the universe is, time is illusion, then the new question is: why do human states of consciusness flow?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291800</id>
	<title>I think</title>
	<author>Token\_Internet\_Girl</author>
	<datestamp>1267185300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We spend too much time on the subject of time. How can we really ever know the true nature of time if we are limited by our perception of it as human beings? All we can see is the Entropic version of time this guy discussed; things are in state one, the state changes with chemical reactions and energy release, then they are in an irreversible state. Time is a byproduct of this basic law of Thermodynamics.

Personally I'm of the mind that the true nature of the universe eludes it because there are forces or concepts we are yet incapable of perceiving. But I'm only a novice in Physics, I could be wrong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We spend too much time on the subject of time .
How can we really ever know the true nature of time if we are limited by our perception of it as human beings ?
All we can see is the Entropic version of time this guy discussed ; things are in state one , the state changes with chemical reactions and energy release , then they are in an irreversible state .
Time is a byproduct of this basic law of Thermodynamics .
Personally I 'm of the mind that the true nature of the universe eludes it because there are forces or concepts we are yet incapable of perceiving .
But I 'm only a novice in Physics , I could be wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We spend too much time on the subject of time.
How can we really ever know the true nature of time if we are limited by our perception of it as human beings?
All we can see is the Entropic version of time this guy discussed; things are in state one, the state changes with chemical reactions and energy release, then they are in an irreversible state.
Time is a byproduct of this basic law of Thermodynamics.
Personally I'm of the mind that the true nature of the universe eludes it because there are forces or concepts we are yet incapable of perceiving.
But I'm only a novice in Physics, I could be wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293240</id>
	<title>Re:My head hurts....</title>
	<author>Fareq</author>
	<datestamp>1267193460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The explanation of this one that I have heard is:</p><p>you can turn an egg into a mess by applying a small amount of energy.</p><p>there is no way to turn a mess into an egg using only the amount of energy it would take to turn an egg into a mess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The explanation of this one that I have heard is : you can turn an egg into a mess by applying a small amount of energy.there is no way to turn a mess into an egg using only the amount of energy it would take to turn an egg into a mess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The explanation of this one that I have heard is:you can turn an egg into a mess by applying a small amount of energy.there is no way to turn a mess into an egg using only the amount of energy it would take to turn an egg into a mess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31294126</id>
	<title>Re:[...]you can't turn an omelet into an egg.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267200180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My uncle, he thinks he's a chicken.</p><p>Why don't you have him committed?</p><p>It's because we need the eggs...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My uncle , he thinks he 's a chicken.Why do n't you have him committed ? It 's because we need the eggs.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My uncle, he thinks he's a chicken.Why don't you have him committed?It's because we need the eggs...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291958</id>
	<title>Re:St Augustine already figured it out:</title>
	<author>Tomfrh</author>
	<datestamp>1267186260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe, but a lot physicists seem very keen on eternalist interpretations of time in which every instant is just as real as any other.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe , but a lot physicists seem very keen on eternalist interpretations of time in which every instant is just as real as any other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe, but a lot physicists seem very keen on eternalist interpretations of time in which every instant is just as real as any other.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293024</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267192020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>We remember the past but we don't remember the future. There are irreversible processes. There are things that happen, like you turn an egg into an omelet, but you can't turn an omelet into an egg.</p></div><p>But if time is non-monotonic, wouldn't we un-remember, un-break things, during the backturns?</p><p>How would anyone know if time isn't always forward?</p></div><p> Well, you can figure the thing out by watching a low price wall clock for some time. The proof is in the pudding.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We remember the past but we do n't remember the future .
There are irreversible processes .
There are things that happen , like you turn an egg into an omelet , but you ca n't turn an omelet into an egg.But if time is non-monotonic , would n't we un-remember , un-break things , during the backturns ? How would anyone know if time is n't always forward ?
Well , you can figure the thing out by watching a low price wall clock for some time .
The proof is in the pudding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We remember the past but we don't remember the future.
There are irreversible processes.
There are things that happen, like you turn an egg into an omelet, but you can't turn an omelet into an egg.But if time is non-monotonic, wouldn't we un-remember, un-break things, during the backturns?How would anyone know if time isn't always forward?
Well, you can figure the thing out by watching a low price wall clock for some time.
The proof is in the pudding.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292722</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267190340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>because a shuffled deck of cards leans towards chaos not order.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>because a shuffled deck of cards leans towards chaos not order .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because a shuffled deck of cards leans towards chaos not order.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293048</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>SoftwareArtist</author>
	<datestamp>1267192200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>He actually discusses this fairly well in the interview.  Here is where it's put most succinctly:<p><div class="quote"><p>Wired.com: In this multiverse theory, you have a static universe in the middle. From that, smaller universes pop off and travel in different directions, or arrows of time. So does that mean that the universe at the center has no time?
<br> <br>
Carroll: So that&rsquo;s a distinction that is worth drawing. There&rsquo;s different moments in the history of the universe and time tells you which moment you&rsquo;re talking about. And then there&rsquo;s the arrow of time, which give us the feeling of progress, the feeling of flowing or moving through time. So that static universe in the middle has time as a coordinate but there&rsquo;s no arrow of time. There&rsquo;s no future versus past, everything is equal to each other.</p></div><p>The essential point is that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is really a backward way of looking at the question.  It isn't that entropy increases with time.  It's that we <i>define</i> "forward in time" to mean, "the direction of increasing entropy".  Our local region of the multiverse happens to have an entropy gradient in one direction, so that's the direction we perceive time to increase in.  But other regions of the multiverse might have different directions of increasing entropy, and hence different "arrows of time".  And still other regions of the multiverse are completely flat with regard to entropy.  In those regions, it isn't meaningful to define any arrow of time at all.
<br> <br>
We feel like we're "moving through time" because we can only remember the past, not the future.  If we could remember past and future equally well, we wouldn't have that sensation.  Every moment would feel static, equally connected to past and feature.  We wouldn't have a sense of moving in one particular direction.
<br> <br>
So the question is, why can't we remember the future?  And the answer is, because increasing entropy is needed to form memories.  Just after the big bang, the universe was in a state of very low entropy.  All the energy in the universe was concentrated in a tiny region of space.  Since then, that energy has steadily spread out and become more diffuse (that is, entropy has increased), but the process still has a long way to go.  We still have enormous amounts of energy concentrated into small areas known as stars.  But energy is continuously flowing out from our sun and getting transferred from one form to another.  Nuclear reactions produce high energy photons, which are used by plants to produce sugars, which our bodies use to produce ATP, which we use to manufacture proteins and form synapses and do all the other things needed to form a memory.  At each stage, energy is converted from one form to another, and the entropy of the universe increases a little bit.  Forming a memory is one of those transitions.  On one side of the transition, the energy is still stored in ATP and the memory doesn't exist yet.  On the other side of the transition, ATP has been used to form a memory, so the memory exists and the ATP has been split.  Forming a memory requires using energy (and hence producing entropy), so the memory can only exist on the high entropy side of the transition.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>He actually discusses this fairly well in the interview .
Here is where it 's put most succinctly : Wired.com : In this multiverse theory , you have a static universe in the middle .
From that , smaller universes pop off and travel in different directions , or arrows of time .
So does that mean that the universe at the center has no time ?
Carroll : So that    s a distinction that is worth drawing .
There    s different moments in the history of the universe and time tells you which moment you    re talking about .
And then there    s the arrow of time , which give us the feeling of progress , the feeling of flowing or moving through time .
So that static universe in the middle has time as a coordinate but there    s no arrow of time .
There    s no future versus past , everything is equal to each other.The essential point is that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is really a backward way of looking at the question .
It is n't that entropy increases with time .
It 's that we define " forward in time " to mean , " the direction of increasing entropy " .
Our local region of the multiverse happens to have an entropy gradient in one direction , so that 's the direction we perceive time to increase in .
But other regions of the multiverse might have different directions of increasing entropy , and hence different " arrows of time " .
And still other regions of the multiverse are completely flat with regard to entropy .
In those regions , it is n't meaningful to define any arrow of time at all .
We feel like we 're " moving through time " because we can only remember the past , not the future .
If we could remember past and future equally well , we would n't have that sensation .
Every moment would feel static , equally connected to past and feature .
We would n't have a sense of moving in one particular direction .
So the question is , why ca n't we remember the future ?
And the answer is , because increasing entropy is needed to form memories .
Just after the big bang , the universe was in a state of very low entropy .
All the energy in the universe was concentrated in a tiny region of space .
Since then , that energy has steadily spread out and become more diffuse ( that is , entropy has increased ) , but the process still has a long way to go .
We still have enormous amounts of energy concentrated into small areas known as stars .
But energy is continuously flowing out from our sun and getting transferred from one form to another .
Nuclear reactions produce high energy photons , which are used by plants to produce sugars , which our bodies use to produce ATP , which we use to manufacture proteins and form synapses and do all the other things needed to form a memory .
At each stage , energy is converted from one form to another , and the entropy of the universe increases a little bit .
Forming a memory is one of those transitions .
On one side of the transition , the energy is still stored in ATP and the memory does n't exist yet .
On the other side of the transition , ATP has been used to form a memory , so the memory exists and the ATP has been split .
Forming a memory requires using energy ( and hence producing entropy ) , so the memory can only exist on the high entropy side of the transition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He actually discusses this fairly well in the interview.
Here is where it's put most succinctly:Wired.com: In this multiverse theory, you have a static universe in the middle.
From that, smaller universes pop off and travel in different directions, or arrows of time.
So does that mean that the universe at the center has no time?
Carroll: So that’s a distinction that is worth drawing.
There’s different moments in the history of the universe and time tells you which moment you’re talking about.
And then there’s the arrow of time, which give us the feeling of progress, the feeling of flowing or moving through time.
So that static universe in the middle has time as a coordinate but there’s no arrow of time.
There’s no future versus past, everything is equal to each other.The essential point is that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is really a backward way of looking at the question.
It isn't that entropy increases with time.
It's that we define "forward in time" to mean, "the direction of increasing entropy".
Our local region of the multiverse happens to have an entropy gradient in one direction, so that's the direction we perceive time to increase in.
But other regions of the multiverse might have different directions of increasing entropy, and hence different "arrows of time".
And still other regions of the multiverse are completely flat with regard to entropy.
In those regions, it isn't meaningful to define any arrow of time at all.
We feel like we're "moving through time" because we can only remember the past, not the future.
If we could remember past and future equally well, we wouldn't have that sensation.
Every moment would feel static, equally connected to past and feature.
We wouldn't have a sense of moving in one particular direction.
So the question is, why can't we remember the future?
And the answer is, because increasing entropy is needed to form memories.
Just after the big bang, the universe was in a state of very low entropy.
All the energy in the universe was concentrated in a tiny region of space.
Since then, that energy has steadily spread out and become more diffuse (that is, entropy has increased), but the process still has a long way to go.
We still have enormous amounts of energy concentrated into small areas known as stars.
But energy is continuously flowing out from our sun and getting transferred from one form to another.
Nuclear reactions produce high energy photons, which are used by plants to produce sugars, which our bodies use to produce ATP, which we use to manufacture proteins and form synapses and do all the other things needed to form a memory.
At each stage, energy is converted from one form to another, and the entropy of the universe increases a little bit.
Forming a memory is one of those transitions.
On one side of the transition, the energy is still stored in ATP and the memory doesn't exist yet.
On the other side of the transition, ATP has been used to form a memory, so the memory exists and the ATP has been split.
Forming a memory requires using energy (and hence producing entropy), so the memory can only exist on the high entropy side of the transition.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31295786</id>
	<title>Re:Not that it makes sense</title>
	<author>ballpoint</author>
	<datestamp>1267268700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cool! I didn't know about that, or I've forgotten it (unlikely). Of course, once you think about how matrix multiplication is defined as adding product terms, it's quite logical that you can do addition by multiplication. This doesn't work with simple scalars.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cool !
I did n't know about that , or I 've forgotten it ( unlikely ) .
Of course , once you think about how matrix multiplication is defined as adding product terms , it 's quite logical that you can do addition by multiplication .
This does n't work with simple scalars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cool!
I didn't know about that, or I've forgotten it (unlikely).
Of course, once you think about how matrix multiplication is defined as adding product terms, it's quite logical that you can do addition by multiplication.
This doesn't work with simple scalars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31335878</id>
	<title>What is Time, Phil?</title>
	<author>AnderMoney</author>
	<datestamp>1267525320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"It's an herb!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>" It 's an herb !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It's an herb!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31326338</id>
	<title>Re:Time does not exist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267464240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is time, Jim, but not as we know it!</p><p>You might be interested to note that space does not exist - in exactly the same way that time doesn't exist.  It is exactly the same logic, and from an experiential point of view, it is irrefutable.</p><p>It is possible to witness experientially the non-existence of both time and space.  However, it is also possible to witness experientially the simultaneous existence of a stretch of time, and even to witness that timeline changing its form!  When you return to normal consciousness, you are left with a memory that is hardly reliable, so I certainly don't count it as a proof.</p><p>One approach it is to concentrate your attention on the experience of the present moment, refine it as sharp as possible, and then examine how that differs (or not) from the nearest possible moment in the past or the future.  As you probably realise, the present moment is ever-changing, but we still have a concept/"experience" of the near past and the near future.  It is revealing to witness that experience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is time , Jim , but not as we know it ! You might be interested to note that space does not exist - in exactly the same way that time does n't exist .
It is exactly the same logic , and from an experiential point of view , it is irrefutable.It is possible to witness experientially the non-existence of both time and space .
However , it is also possible to witness experientially the simultaneous existence of a stretch of time , and even to witness that timeline changing its form !
When you return to normal consciousness , you are left with a memory that is hardly reliable , so I certainly do n't count it as a proof.One approach it is to concentrate your attention on the experience of the present moment , refine it as sharp as possible , and then examine how that differs ( or not ) from the nearest possible moment in the past or the future .
As you probably realise , the present moment is ever-changing , but we still have a concept/ " experience " of the near past and the near future .
It is revealing to witness that experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is time, Jim, but not as we know it!You might be interested to note that space does not exist - in exactly the same way that time doesn't exist.
It is exactly the same logic, and from an experiential point of view, it is irrefutable.It is possible to witness experientially the non-existence of both time and space.
However, it is also possible to witness experientially the simultaneous existence of a stretch of time, and even to witness that timeline changing its form!
When you return to normal consciousness, you are left with a memory that is hardly reliable, so I certainly don't count it as a proof.One approach it is to concentrate your attention on the experience of the present moment, refine it as sharp as possible, and then examine how that differs (or not) from the nearest possible moment in the past or the future.
As you probably realise, the present moment is ever-changing, but we still have a concept/"experience" of the near past and the near future.
It is revealing to witness that experience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291672</id>
	<title>easy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267184640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>time is the bi-product of change</htmltext>
<tokenext>time is the bi-product of change</tokentext>
<sentencetext>time is the bi-product of change</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292650</id>
	<title>Impossible question</title>
	<author>Tomfrh</author>
	<datestamp>1267190040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"What is time?" The question is so difficult. I'm always surprised when people offer glib answers along the lines of "time is change" or "time is entropy". This says to me that most people don't even understand the question.</p><p>Feynman said it best:</p><p><i> "What is time? Don't even ask me. It's just too hard to think about."</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" What is time ?
" The question is so difficult .
I 'm always surprised when people offer glib answers along the lines of " time is change " or " time is entropy " .
This says to me that most people do n't even understand the question.Feynman said it best : " What is time ?
Do n't even ask me .
It 's just too hard to think about .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"What is time?
" The question is so difficult.
I'm always surprised when people offer glib answers along the lines of "time is change" or "time is entropy".
This says to me that most people don't even understand the question.Feynman said it best: "What is time?
Don't even ask me.
It's just too hard to think about.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292018</id>
	<title>Re:[...]you can't turn an omelet into an egg.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267186560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you could then test what the efficiency is of the egg-&gt;chicken-&gt;egg cycle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you could then test what the efficiency is of the egg- &gt; chicken- &gt; egg cycle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you could then test what the efficiency is of the egg-&gt;chicken-&gt;egg cycle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292608</id>
	<title>What if</title>
	<author>NetNed</author>
	<datestamp>1267189800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>C-A-T really spelled DOG?</htmltext>
<tokenext>C-A-T really spelled DOG ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C-A-T really spelled DOG?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31294290</id>
	<title>well there's this theory</title>
	<author>mestar</author>
	<datestamp>1267202040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QER\_yqTcmjM" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QER\_yqTcmjM</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = QER \ _yqTcmjM [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QER\_yqTcmjM [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292986</id>
	<title>what happens at 88 MPH?</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1267191780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what happens at 88 MPH?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what happens at 88 MPH ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what happens at 88 MPH?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31294338</id>
	<title>Re:My head hurts....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267202520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>At the subatomic level, everything is reversible with equal probability. If a particle can decay into two others, the two others can join to form the particle just as easily.</i></p><p>Most things, but apparently not <b>everything</b>.</p><p>Quoting <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cp\_Violation#Direct\_CPV" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">The Wiki</a> [wikipedia.org]:</p><blockquote><div><p>neutral kaons can transform into their antiparticles (in which each quark is replaced with the other's antiquark) and vice versa, but such transformation does not occur with exactly the same probability in both directions</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At the subatomic level , everything is reversible with equal probability .
If a particle can decay into two others , the two others can join to form the particle just as easily.Most things , but apparently not everything.Quoting The Wiki [ wikipedia.org ] : neutral kaons can transform into their antiparticles ( in which each quark is replaced with the other 's antiquark ) and vice versa , but such transformation does not occur with exactly the same probability in both directions</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the subatomic level, everything is reversible with equal probability.
If a particle can decay into two others, the two others can join to form the particle just as easily.Most things, but apparently not everything.Quoting The Wiki [wikipedia.org]:neutral kaons can transform into their antiparticles (in which each quark is replaced with the other's antiquark) and vice versa, but such transformation does not occur with exactly the same probability in both directions
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292766</id>
	<title>Time is just another direction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267190580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Moving 'backwards' in time and being able to see your future ahead of seems just as reasonable as walking forwards and looking where you're going. What I mean is that the Universe is what it is irrespective of Man and the fact that we experience time as we do doesn't imply that's how the Universe actually works.</p><p>Not sure about the capital U but being the only one (we know about) it probably deserves a proper noun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Moving 'backwards ' in time and being able to see your future ahead of seems just as reasonable as walking forwards and looking where you 're going .
What I mean is that the Universe is what it is irrespective of Man and the fact that we experience time as we do does n't imply that 's how the Universe actually works.Not sure about the capital U but being the only one ( we know about ) it probably deserves a proper noun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Moving 'backwards' in time and being able to see your future ahead of seems just as reasonable as walking forwards and looking where you're going.
What I mean is that the Universe is what it is irrespective of Man and the fact that we experience time as we do doesn't imply that's how the Universe actually works.Not sure about the capital U but being the only one (we know about) it probably deserves a proper noun.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31294670</id>
	<title>Re:[...]you can't turn an omelet into an egg.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267206240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I for one welcome our cannibal chicken overlords.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I for one welcome our cannibal chicken overlords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I for one welcome our cannibal chicken overlords.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292028</id>
	<title>Re:Timeline</title>
	<author>dave562</author>
	<datestamp>1267186620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do you explain when it doesn't happen after the fact?  For example there are times when I have a second or two advance warning.  I know exactly what someone is going to say, and then they say it.  I never know more than a few words, but I know exactly what those few words will be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you explain when it does n't happen after the fact ?
For example there are times when I have a second or two advance warning .
I know exactly what someone is going to say , and then they say it .
I never know more than a few words , but I know exactly what those few words will be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you explain when it doesn't happen after the fact?
For example there are times when I have a second or two advance warning.
I know exactly what someone is going to say, and then they say it.
I never know more than a few words, but I know exactly what those few words will be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293634</id>
	<title>Cubic Time</title>
	<author>benjamindees</author>
	<datestamp>1267196100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone knows time is a cube.  What are you all, educated stupid or what?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone knows time is a cube .
What are you all , educated stupid or what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone knows time is a cube.
What are you all, educated stupid or what?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292856</id>
	<title>Re:Islamic view of "time"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267191000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>To some extent, mankind has the ability of self determination on the small scale but in the larger scheme of things, God had determined everything. For example, the time of death for a person is already determined(though we will not know it) even before birth and mankind could not avoid or add or subtract even 1 second to this</p></div><p>Ergo, we shouldn't get upset when someone dies from a suicide bomber, right?  Their time of death already being determined and all.  And that being the case, why be upset at the suicide bombers?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To some extent , mankind has the ability of self determination on the small scale but in the larger scheme of things , God had determined everything .
For example , the time of death for a person is already determined ( though we will not know it ) even before birth and mankind could not avoid or add or subtract even 1 second to thisErgo , we should n't get upset when someone dies from a suicide bomber , right ?
Their time of death already being determined and all .
And that being the case , why be upset at the suicide bombers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To some extent, mankind has the ability of self determination on the small scale but in the larger scheme of things, God had determined everything.
For example, the time of death for a person is already determined(though we will not know it) even before birth and mankind could not avoid or add or subtract even 1 second to thisErgo, we shouldn't get upset when someone dies from a suicide bomber, right?
Their time of death already being determined and all.
And that being the case, why be upset at the suicide bombers?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31294934</id>
	<title>Re:Time does not exist</title>
	<author>MinistryOfTruthiness</author>
	<datestamp>1267209960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You aren't the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_minor\_The\_Hitchhiker's\_Guide\_to\_the\_Galaxy\_characters#The\_Ruler\_of\_the\_Universe" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Ruler of the Universe</a> [wikipedia.org], are you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are n't the Ruler of the Universe [ wikipedia.org ] , are you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You aren't the Ruler of the Universe [wikipedia.org], are you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291760</id>
	<title>Humpty Dumpty</title>
	<author>mosb1000</author>
	<datestamp>1267185060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,<br>
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.<br>
All the king's horses and all the king's men<br>
Couldn't put Humpty together again.</p><p>A more apt question is this: What is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy" title="wikipedia.org">Entropy</a> [wikipedia.org]?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall , Humpty Dumpty had a great fall .
All the king 's horses and all the king 's men Could n't put Humpty together again.A more apt question is this : What is Entropy [ wikipedia.org ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king's horses and all the king's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again.A more apt question is this: What is Entropy [wikipedia.org]?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293248</id>
	<title>Re:Timeline</title>
	<author>SinGunner</author>
	<datestamp>1267193520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It sounds like you've never had deja vu where you can "repeat" exactly what the other person was going to say as they say it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds like you 've never had deja vu where you can " repeat " exactly what the other person was going to say as they say it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds like you've never had deja vu where you can "repeat" exactly what the other person was going to say as they say it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292670</id>
	<title>Re:Time does not exist</title>
	<author>dintlu</author>
	<datestamp>1267190160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the most ridiculous semantic argument I have ever read.  Saying that "time doesn't exist" is a cop-out for simple minds.</p><p>"Time" is the word we use to describe the chain of causality that human beings can commonly observe.  Yes, there are a lot of assumptions inherent in our definition of the word, but that doesn't mean you can say it doesn't exist.  All you can do is speculate on the nature of time based on your observations (i.e. "The only thing we have is present-moment memories, etc"), attempt to formulate a testable hypothesis, and seek falsifying or confirming evidence for that hypothesis.</p><p>It just so happens that's really difficult to do when every frame of reference you have occurs (or appears to occur) within the very thing you're trying to study.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the most ridiculous semantic argument I have ever read .
Saying that " time does n't exist " is a cop-out for simple minds .
" Time " is the word we use to describe the chain of causality that human beings can commonly observe .
Yes , there are a lot of assumptions inherent in our definition of the word , but that does n't mean you can say it does n't exist .
All you can do is speculate on the nature of time based on your observations ( i.e .
" The only thing we have is present-moment memories , etc " ) , attempt to formulate a testable hypothesis , and seek falsifying or confirming evidence for that hypothesis.It just so happens that 's really difficult to do when every frame of reference you have occurs ( or appears to occur ) within the very thing you 're trying to study .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the most ridiculous semantic argument I have ever read.
Saying that "time doesn't exist" is a cop-out for simple minds.
"Time" is the word we use to describe the chain of causality that human beings can commonly observe.
Yes, there are a lot of assumptions inherent in our definition of the word, but that doesn't mean you can say it doesn't exist.
All you can do is speculate on the nature of time based on your observations (i.e.
"The only thing we have is present-moment memories, etc"), attempt to formulate a testable hypothesis, and seek falsifying or confirming evidence for that hypothesis.It just so happens that's really difficult to do when every frame of reference you have occurs (or appears to occur) within the very thing you're trying to study.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31294818</id>
	<title>Ticking away...</title>
	<author>zawarski</author>
	<datestamp>1267208280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... the moments that make up the dull day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... the moments that make up the dull day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... the moments that make up the dull day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31298136</id>
	<title>More ways to be disorganised</title>
	<author>mattpalmer1086</author>
	<datestamp>1267298040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is just a statistical argument.  There are simply far more ways to be disorganised than organised.  So it's just very, very unlikely (but not impossible) for large numbers of things to behave in a way that looks like "time-reversal" to us.  This is why you get the difference between the scales - it's just the combinatorial explosion you get when arranging large numbers of things.</p><p>I seriously wonder why anyone think this provides any deep explanation of time itself - glad to be enlightened if I'm missing something deep (or obvious) here...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just a statistical argument .
There are simply far more ways to be disorganised than organised .
So it 's just very , very unlikely ( but not impossible ) for large numbers of things to behave in a way that looks like " time-reversal " to us .
This is why you get the difference between the scales - it 's just the combinatorial explosion you get when arranging large numbers of things.I seriously wonder why anyone think this provides any deep explanation of time itself - glad to be enlightened if I 'm missing something deep ( or obvious ) here.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just a statistical argument.
There are simply far more ways to be disorganised than organised.
So it's just very, very unlikely (but not impossible) for large numbers of things to behave in a way that looks like "time-reversal" to us.
This is why you get the difference between the scales - it's just the combinatorial explosion you get when arranging large numbers of things.I seriously wonder why anyone think this provides any deep explanation of time itself - glad to be enlightened if I'm missing something deep (or obvious) here...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293800</id>
	<title>Re:Islamic view of "time"</title>
	<author>afabbro</author>
	<datestamp>1267197360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Islamic view of time and the universe in general is that what has happened, is happening and will happen has already been determined ("it is written"). What has happened can never be undone and this is mentioned many-many times in the Quran.</p></div><p>The Islamic view of time is plagiarized from other views of time, just as the Quran is plagiarized from other sources.  There is really nothing original in Islam, which is why it's so tediously dull to study.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Islamic view of time and the universe in general is that what has happened , is happening and will happen has already been determined ( " it is written " ) .
What has happened can never be undone and this is mentioned many-many times in the Quran.The Islamic view of time is plagiarized from other views of time , just as the Quran is plagiarized from other sources .
There is really nothing original in Islam , which is why it 's so tediously dull to study .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Islamic view of time and the universe in general is that what has happened, is happening and will happen has already been determined ("it is written").
What has happened can never be undone and this is mentioned many-many times in the Quran.The Islamic view of time is plagiarized from other views of time, just as the Quran is plagiarized from other sources.
There is really nothing original in Islam, which is why it's so tediously dull to study.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31294870</id>
	<title>Re:Time Travel</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267208940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eric?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eric ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eric?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292680</id>
	<title>Re:Time does not exist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267190160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clocks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clocks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clocks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291648</id>
	<title>But...</title>
	<author>Black Parrot</author>
	<datestamp>1267184520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We remember the past but we don't remember the future. There are irreversible processes. There are things that happen, like you turn an egg into an omelet, but you can't turn an omelet into an egg.</p></div><p>But if time is non-monotonic, wouldn't we un-remember, un-break things, during the backturns?</p><p>How would anyone know if time isn't always forward?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We remember the past but we do n't remember the future .
There are irreversible processes .
There are things that happen , like you turn an egg into an omelet , but you ca n't turn an omelet into an egg.But if time is non-monotonic , would n't we un-remember , un-break things , during the backturns ? How would anyone know if time is n't always forward ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We remember the past but we don't remember the future.
There are irreversible processes.
There are things that happen, like you turn an egg into an omelet, but you can't turn an omelet into an egg.But if time is non-monotonic, wouldn't we un-remember, un-break things, during the backturns?How would anyone know if time isn't always forward?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31294656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31294690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31294942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31303320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31295526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31449656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31295396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31295180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31299346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31304670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31294116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31449594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31295432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31298136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31300494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31449612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31304694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31295152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31297124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31295528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31294036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31294016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31295646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31299314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31323232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31299442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31295054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31295786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31294934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31300296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31449574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31294232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31326338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31295410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31299222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31304692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31294852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31303230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31305282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31294284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31294126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31294338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31295524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31295312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31312668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31294670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31296570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31294870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31297036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31297276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31294322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1950253_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1950253.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31295528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31303320
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1950253.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31294116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31294232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31295054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31294852
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1950253.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292138
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31449612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292428
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31297124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31295410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31295180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293048
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1950253.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292044
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1950253.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292132
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293240
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292604
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31295524
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31299314
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31312668
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31298136
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31295396
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31295432
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31294338
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1950253.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31296236
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1950253.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292218
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1950253.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292142
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1950253.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31449594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292298
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1950253.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31294126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291868
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31296570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31300296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31299222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31449574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31294670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292018
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1950253.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31299442
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1950253.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291638
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1950253.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291660
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292950
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292648
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292028
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31303230
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292384
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292550
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293228
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292478
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293248
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292374
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292366
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293364
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31304694
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293346
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292070
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31294322
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31300494
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31294016
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291890
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31294690
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1950253.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291856
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1950253.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31295152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31323232
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1950253.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293122
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1950253.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31294656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31294942
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1950253.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31297276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31326338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31304692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31294934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31297036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31299346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31305282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292670
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292552
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1950253.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31293494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31295312
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1950253.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31295786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292410
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1950253.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291800
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1950253.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292572
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1950253.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291958
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1950253.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31295706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1950253.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292888
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1950253.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31295526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31294036
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1950253.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31295646
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1950253.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31449656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31294284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31294870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31304670
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1950253.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292650
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1950253.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31291848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1950253.31292264
</commentlist>
</conversation>
