Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
501 bytes added ,  02:36, December 1, 2009
→‎Reversion Anticipated: that information should be in the introduction, not buried thousands of words later
Line 210: Line 210:     
: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)
 
: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)
 +
 +
::Black holes and wormholes were predicted by relativity in a similar way, and both are not falsifiable and thus arguably not science.  The term "[[falsifiable]]" has a real meaning and your replacement isn't quite the same.  The point is that if black holes are false and non-existent, then there is no way to show that.  Ditto for wormholes, and in that information should be in the introduction, not buried thousands of words later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:36, 30 November 2009 (EST)
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,194

edits

Navigation menu