> the physical 3d analogous projection would be two slightly overlapping 3d-venn diagram funnels conjoining at an "indefinitely" (asymptotically smaller) small space-time minkowski manifold.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, but it doesn't seem to correspond to any actual physical model that I'm aware of.
> both objects have a space cone that is overlapping
Again, I don't know what you mean by this, but it doesn't look like any actual physical model that I'm aware of.
> i was just pointing out cone versus cylinder
The cylinder I referred to is the outgoing side of the light cones at the horizon. The horizon itself is a lightlike surface. So the distinction you appear to be trying to draw here is simply invalid for a black hole horizon.
>space cone
>light cone
cone
but inside of an event horizon, that cone is actually an ever-narrowing beam in an ever-increasing gravitational field, slowing on the 4-d axis too. all ending in one 'point'.
my point being that the waist is infinitesimally, but not actually infinitely, small.
The cylinder I referred to is the outgoing side of the light cones at the horizon. The horizon itself is a lightlike surface. So the distinction you appear to be trying to draw here is simply invalid for a black hole horizon.
outside of the event horizon the "light cone" would "be" a "barely-parallel" "cylinder" yes.
the universe with all of its forever-unreachable parties outside each others sphere of causality would be like a 4-d porcupine ball.
but it doesn't look like any actual physical model that I'm aware of.
Sorry, but your statements still don't describe an actual physical model.
> the 3d projection of a `light cone`
Is not well-defined.
> all possible spacetime causality/light/info could observe...your own observable universe
This is a past light cone. The light cone whose outgoing side is the event horizon of a black hole is a future light cone.
> inside of an event horizon, that cone is actually an ever-narrowing beam in an ever-increasing gravitational field, slowing on the 4-d axis too. all ending in one 'point'.
Nope, wrong.
> hawking radiation evaporates larger black holes more than smaller black holes
Wrong. The intensity of Hawking radiation goes like the inverse cube of the mass. Smaller holes radiate more than larger holes.
> these aren't exactly intuitive geometries
Yes, indeed. Which means you shouldn't be trying to understand them intuitively the way you are doing. You should be looking at the actual math.
both objects have a space cone that is overlapping - since they can observe each other, but also have a small bit they xor can observe, since they are a spatialtime distance apart.
regardless, once they are inside the event horizon, their spacetime ends in a "singularity" - that only they experience, since everyone else just saw an ever-slowing couple of observers that never quite reached the event horizon (to the outside observer, who would eventually be either iron or protons, depending if God had decided if they protons should decay or not yet)
i was just pointing out cone versus cylinder, since the black holes' effect is polynomial af