[Plain Old Jane]

Originally Posted by Mike

This question is not grounded in physics

I'll rephrase then, Define both the objects and explain your answer. it is grounded in physics, or at least, all or some of the knowledge contained within the bounds of our universe.

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.

I used the laws and proven theories of Issac Newton, Einstein, and Schrodinger, as well as dabbled in DeBroglie, and Bohr and Hawking. (newton for general laws of motion, einstein for energy and relativity, schrodinger for his comment on general quantum theory. DeBroglie discovered Particle/Wave attributes and photon shiznit, Bohr for atomic theory, and hawking for his view on black holes.) for my theory anyway, I should have asked a more open ended question, "explain how you define the objects and then answer the question." I apologize for the misconstruementismness.

Hence, I answered it theologically, based on the argument of a prime mover, actuality, potentiality, and first cause. I think that it's legitimate.

I agree, I apologize if i made you feel otherwise.

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.

touche' my friend...

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.

I'll have to disagree with you here, time dialates as one approaches the speed of light, not as one approaches the event horizon. (at least, thats what einstein says.) Since light already travels C, it would be impossible to go faster without an INFINITLY powerful outside force.

and for that matter, if it were to go "faster," since time is already stopped/all at once, where's it gonna go? Back in time, i'd wager. (so, right back at you?)

if you view time as something like this

Time: normal...... slowing ...... stopped*...... backwards
--------------->--------->----->---> + <------...
Speed:
----------------------------------->....-->...---??
conventional speed..................... C** ...Faster than light

*stopped/all at once
**Speed of light

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.

I think you are thinking of time as an absolute here, which isnt true, its relative, and for that fact theoretically non existant.(merely a construct of the mind that cant understand a point where it does not exist, ie. death. according to my own interpretations, as well some interpretations of einstein and some contemporary philosophers.)

Time is not the same for you as it is for the photon. The photon is already at C, and therefore since time would literally stop/happen all at once for the photon, therefore being literally everywhere at once. But light still functions to our relative perception of it, despite its temporally paradoxical nature.

If you can explain why light still bounces off my hand instead of remaining at the light source since its going C at all times, I'll gladdly accept it.

otherwise you may have to answer in more detail or point me to a source concerning light approaching event horizons. (But I think you're mixxing Zeno's Paradox with Einsteins Relativity.)

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.

Excellent point!

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).

well, yes technically it will forever be impossible to witness this event physically speaking. Because of the gravity of the object in question, if one were to hold a white flashlight while being pulled into a black hole, it would fade to red then purple, then blue, then the only photons that could escape would be infrared, but those'd fade too because their short distance waves. But to the person holding the light, it'd still be white, time is relative you see.

But I dont quite understand why the photon would never reach the event horizon. like I said, I think your mixing theories... (but I could be wrong, can you elaborate?)