Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NorthernCross
this is a question grounded in physics, not theology, one cant expect a question like this one and a question like "if a person who cant be smacked in the face meets a person who can smack anyone in the face meet, what would happen?" to mean exactly the same thing. Though I agree hex is black.
|
This question is not grounded in physics, it is grounded in a paradox that can be answered a dozen different ways (like the 'tree falls in the woods', 'chicken and the egg' shit--they're not meant to be answered, but they
can be answered). You simply asked "Who wins the irresistable force or the immoveable object? Please explain your answer." There is no mention of any legitimate physics (and don't claim that the terms themselves, force, moving, etc are 'physics' terms. If they are, that'd be a damn shame for physicists) in the question, and it's a question that can be answer anyway. Hence, I answered it theologically, based on the argument of a prime mover, actuality, potentiality, and first cause. I think that it's legitimate.
Your examples weren't based on 'physics' they were based on theory, as you pointed out. People have theorized that there are black holes, and you mentioned that it only "theoretically exists" which is true, because there is no proof for the existence of a black hole, yet people reason to believe that they exist. There is another thing that can also theoretically exist. I already mentioned it.
Though, entertaining the idea that Black Holes exist (which I have to agree that they do, or are theoretically possible given what we percieve of the universe), you mentioned that we can answer the question once we 'find out' what happens when photons enter a black hole. People generally 'find something out' by using their senses. Because this event is rather far ... I doubt that we'd be able to use our senses of touch, taste, or any of those, and really focus the most on sight (whether it actually be looking through an 'infinitely' strong telescope, or just watching bends in space/time on a graph, if that were somehow measurable). It is generally agreed upon that photons approaching the event horizon take an
infinite amount of time to reach the actual event horizon, as time dilation grows exponentially the closer the photon is to the event horizon. An infinite amount of time, in this case, becomes no time at all [literally, not figuratively], as we can only judge the distance the photon travels by time... and if it takes an infinite amount of time for that photon to reach the event horizon, then it is as good as permanently still. Stillness, unfortunately, is impossible. There can only be stillness in the absense of that photon, as that photon carries enough heat to prevent absolute zero. Additionally, the entire universe would have to be still, as the heat that the moving universe generates--even a tiny speck of friction between an ant and a plank of wood that it is moving on--is enough heat to prevent absolute zero.
Because this question is asked of us [anyone, as you said] (as you cannot ask a photon a question), because of General and Special Relativity, it is impossible to wager that the photon
ever meets the event horizon (in that time ceases to exist, for us, when watching a photon approach the event horizon).