798
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 214:
Line 214: + +
→Reversion Anticipated
:::I don't really understand wormholes myself. It seems to me that they're a different subject and that mentioning them actually detracts from our points about black holes; however, I'll defer to you on keeping them there. And thanks for your point about the meaning in the specific word "[[falsifiable]]". My main point is that we should explain why "you can't prove there isn't a black hole somewhere in the universe" is different from "you can't prove there isn't Jack Smith somewhere in the world": because "black holes cannot be observed from outside, since not even light escapes." So, I tried to restore the chain of reasoning; I tacked wormholes on the end because I can't see a better place to put them. If you disagree with how I phrased the non-falsifiability sentence, I'd appreciate if you could try to fix that rather than revert the whole paragraph. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 23:30, 30 November 2009 (EST)
:::I don't really understand wormholes myself. It seems to me that they're a different subject and that mentioning them actually detracts from our points about black holes; however, I'll defer to you on keeping them there. And thanks for your point about the meaning in the specific word "[[falsifiable]]". My main point is that we should explain why "you can't prove there isn't a black hole somewhere in the universe" is different from "you can't prove there isn't Jack Smith somewhere in the world": because "black holes cannot be observed from outside, since not even light escapes." So, I tried to restore the chain of reasoning; I tacked wormholes on the end because I can't see a better place to put them. If you disagree with how I phrased the non-falsifiability sentence, I'd appreciate if you could try to fix that rather than revert the whole paragraph. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 23:30, 30 November 2009 (EST)
:::: Well skipping the question of why light is needed to prove something's existence, I find this sentence most disturbing: "What actually exists inside the event horizon of a black hole is a question physics '''is''' unable to answer. " Over the original "What actually exists inside the event horizon of a black hole is a question physics '''has thus far been''' unable to answer." The original sentence is much more accurate. You cannot say with absolute certainty that physics will never be able to answer what is beyond the event horizon, because there is always the possibility that question will be answered someday. Really that should be reverted. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 09:49, 1 December 2009 (EST)