:::: 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) | :::: 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) |