> 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.
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.
> the 3d projection of a `light cone`
Is not well-defined.
a this 4d-cone's shadow (projection unto a lower plane) is a sphere, unless one deviates the cone or observation point from it's axis/dimension of projection, then it 'sharply' becomes a pointy-hemisphere, then a cone, as the projection approaches the perpendicular axis. This deviation is the effect of Lorentz transformation affect on spacetime. The higher the deviation, the closer to C, the more stretched the projection - space - becomes for an observer.
> 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.
Once you cross the event horizon, your time will end in that same point, regardless of your movement in space.
This projection would be an ever-narrowing cone.
I appreciate the discourse, and I know projections/analogously breaking are the bane of the physicists, but I am wondering where my mental model is imprecise - at the edge of the impossible singularity, or the edge of the 'hairy' black hole?
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.
hawking radiation evaporates larger black holes more than smaller black holes. even if not the most testable (understatement), 4/3 * pi * r^3 where r gets smaller infinitesimally is a cone when plotted over the 4th dimension.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.
these aren't exactly intuitive geometries XD