740
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 208:
Line 208: + +
Agreed - I thought I did it.
The point about [[wormholes]] and lack of [[falsifiability]] should remain in the introduction. We don't fall for Wikipedia-style [[placement bias]] here, as in having to read through thousands of words and page screen pages before realizing that [[Bertrand Russell]] was a communist sympathizer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 30 November 2009 (EST)
The point about [[wormholes]] and lack of [[falsifiability]] should remain in the introduction. We don't fall for Wikipedia-style [[placement bias]] here, as in having to read through thousands of words and page screen pages before realizing that [[Bertrand Russell]] was a communist sympathizer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 30 November 2009 (EST)
:Agreed, and I tried to explain in the introduction how black holes "can never be conclusively proved or disproved," because of how no light escapes them. If you think it can be phrased better, please change the conclusion. But, I don't think we need to mention in the intro to this '''black hole''' article how '''[[wormholes]]''' are also unfalsifiable. It should be in the intro to the [[wormhole]] article, but I don't think it needs to be here. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 21:12, 30 November 2009 (EST)