[Dave Lev (OP)]

Dear Kryptid
Sorry as I didn't understand you correctly.

Magnetism could only move particles away from the hole if they are already outside of the horizon.

I agreed that magnetism would have an effect on electrically-charged particles generated as Hawking radiation (which are outside of the horizon), but at no point did I agree that magnetism can pull them out of an event horizon. It can't.

So, do you mean that if there is a positive particle out of the event of horizon of a SMBH (But very close to it), based on magnetism and Lorentz force this particle could be ejected outwards. However, if it is located inwards into the event of horizon, than there is no way to push it outwards even if the magnetism is infinity?

you can't stop yourself from moving towards the singularity inside the hole. Magnetism, even if it is literally infinitely strong, will make no difference.

In order to get better understanding:
Let assume that one positive particle is located one meter inwards from the Event of horizon and the other one is located one meter outwards from the event of horizon
Both particles orbits almost at the same velocity around the SMBH.
Therefore:
Do you agree that the gravity force on both two positive particles is finite and almost identical?
If the magnetism is infinite do you agree that Lorentz force should also be infinite?
If so, I can't understand why infinite Lorentz force can only extract the particle that orbits outwards from the event of horizon but can't do it with the one that orbits two meter inwards?
Let me offer a solution:
1. A particle that orbits inside the event of horizon (even one meter inwards) gets infinite gravity force in order to overcome the infinite Lorentz force. Is it feasible?
2.  A particle that orbits inside the event of horizon doesn't get infinite gravity force. However, the Lorentz force there is zero. So, could it be that once we cross the event of horizon the magnetic force goes to zero?

[Halc]

In order to get better understanding:
Let assume that one positive particle is located one meter inwards from the Event of horizon and the other one is located one meter outwards from the event of horizon

There is no '1 meter inside the event horizon'.  Spacetime in there is different, and the direction leading to the event horizon is not a spatial one.  It is in the direction of the past (and an indefinitely distant past at that).

Both particles orbits almost at the same velocity around the SMBH.

The particle inside may or may not find something to orbit, but it cannot orbit around the SMBH any more than I can orbit the universe.

Therefore:
Do you agree that the gravity force on both two positive particles is finite and almost identical?

There is no obvious gravity force on the inner particle.  I am not attracted to a mass that is in my future, other than to apparently move inevitably into said future, be there attraction from there or not.

1. A particle that orbits inside the event of horizon (even one meter inwards) gets infinite gravity force in order to overcome the infinite Lorentz force. Is it feasible?

It doesn't even make geometric sense.

[Kryptid]

So, do you mean that if there is a positive particle out of the event of horizon of a SMBH (But very close to it), based on magnetism and Lorentz force this particle could be ejected outwards.

Possibly. It depends on the direction the particle is travelling in and the relative orientation of the magnetic field.

However, if it is located inwards into the event of horizon, than there is no way to push it outwards even if the magnetism is infinity?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. In order to escape an event horizon, you have to travel faster than the speed of light. Infinite force, whether it is produced by a magnetic field or otherwise, can only get you up to the speed of light. That isn't enough.

In order to get better understanding:
Let assume that one positive particle is located one meter inwards from the Event of horizon and the other one is located one meter outwards from the event of horizon
Both particles orbits almost at the same velocity around the SMBH.

There are no stable orbits inside of an event horizon. In fact, there are no stable orbits within a radius of 1.5 times that of the event horizon (called the photon sphere). At this distance, only objects moving at the speed of light can remain in orbit. Inside of this radius, not even light can stay in orbit.

Do you agree that the gravity force on both two positive particles is finite and almost identical?

The gravitational force is finite, but that is not what inevitably draws particles towards the singularity once they get inside the horizon. The particles are driven by the swapping of space and time. Time travels forwards outside the horizon whether you want it to or not. Space travels inwards towards the singularity whether you want it to or not. It's like trying to swim upstream when the current is moving too fast for even an infinite force to swim against.

If the magnetism is infinite do you agree that Lorentz force should also be infinite?

Yes, but infinite force won't help. Infinite force can only get you up to the speed of light, not beyond it.

If so, I can't understand why infinite Lorentz force can only extract the particle that orbits outwards from the event of horizon but can't do it with the one that orbits two meter inwards?

It's for the same reason that you can't stop getting older. Space behaves like time inside the horizon.

1. A particle that orbits inside the event of horizon (even one meter inwards) gets infinite gravity force in order to overcome the infinite Lorentz force. Is it feasible?

Orbits don't exist inside the horizon nor is the gravity there infinite in strength.

2.  A particle that orbits inside the event of horizon doesn't get infinite gravity force. However, the Lorentz force there is zero. So, could it be that once we cross the event of horizon the magnetic force goes to zero?

Magnetism probably doesn't go to zero. I think I've seen papers about magnetic field lines (from an outside source) threading the event horizons of spinning black holes as a way to draw angular momentum away from them.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Thanks Kryptid
So, the info is as follow:
1. A positive particle out of the event of horizon will be ejected outwards due to magnetism and Lorentz force
2. A positive particle in the event of horizon won't be ejected outwards due to space time.
3. Magnetism in the event of horizon doesn't go to zero.

If that is correct, let me ask the following:

1. Space time.
If I understand it correctly, Minkowski had developed the Space time module for the Universe.
Based on this module our scientists have found that there must be a curvature in our universe.
However, so far they didn't find any curvature in our universe.
Therefore, my personal understanding is that the space time is just a module which doesn't necessarily represents the real Universe  - especially, once we get into the edge of the module.
Now our scientists have decided to use this model also for the aria inwards the event horizon.
Why is it? Based on what data?
What is the chance that this model is not relevant for the event horizon?
Can you please prove that space time module works also at the event of horizon?
How the extreme conditions at that aria could affect the space time?
If we use this module for the event of horizon, why we can't use it for outside that aria?
Why not using it for the center Bulge or even for the whole galaxy?
Why do we insist to fix it only for that limited aria - Event horizon?


2. Speed limit -
We all know that the maximal speed limit is the speed of light.
We also know that if we go in one direct line, we will never come back to the starting point.
However, based on the space time module, we have discovered that if we go in one direct line, we might come back to the same starting point.
Therefore in the same token - if the space time can set a curvature in space, why it can't eliminate the speed limit?
Why under the space time module, the speed can't get to infinite.
Did we try to verify this issue in our space time modeling?

3. Creation of new particle
You have already confirmed that new particle can be created below the event of horizon in a BH.
This particle can even be ejected from the event horizon if the BH is small enough.
That proves that particle can orbits below the event horizon.
Now you claim that:

Orbits don't exist inside the horizon nor is the gravity there infinite in strength.

How could it be?

[Halc]

Thanks Kryptid
So, the info is as follow:
1. A positive particle out of the event of horizon will be ejected outwards due to magnetism and Lorentz force

Even a regular stellar black hole is far too large to create charged particles.  Photons are unaffected by magnetism and such.

1. Space time.
If I understand it correctly, Minkowski had developed the Space time module for the Universe.
Based on this module our scientists have found that there must be a curvature in our universe.
However, so far they didn't find any curvature in our universe.

It is found wherever mass is nearby, like here on Earth.

We also know that if we go in one direct line, we will never come back to the starting point.

True.  One cannot cross the event horizon, and you would need to cross it to go all the way around if there was an 'around' to go.

However, based on the space time module, we have discovered that if we go in one direct line, we might come back to the same starting point.

I don't know what 'the space time module' is.  Minkowski didn't develop a module.  A model perhaps, but that model is a local model, not one of the universe.

Therefore in the same token - if the space time can set a curvature in space, why it can't eliminate the speed limit?
Why under the space time module, the speed can't get to infinite.

Maximum speed of c follows from frame independent speed of light, not from curved spacetime.

You have already confirmed that new particle can be created below the event of horizon in a BH.

We have not. We're just not in denial of the possibility.

This particle can even be ejected from the event horizon if the BH is small enough.

No it cannot.

That proves that particle can orbits below the event horizon.

Again, no it cannot. Asserting nonsense is not proof of anything. You can't even orbit anywhere close to the event horizon on the outside.

[Kryptid]

1. A positive particle out of the event of horizon will be ejected outwards due to magnetism and Lorentz force

This is no more likely than a negatively-charged particle being ejected.

1. Space time.
If I understand it correctly, Minkowski had developed the Space time module for the Universe.
Based on this module our scientists have found that there must be a curvature in our universe.
However, so far they didn't find any curvature in our universe.
Therefore, my personal understanding is that the space time is just a module which doesn't necessarily represents the real Universe  - especially, once we get into the edge of the module.
Now our scientists have decided to use this model also for the aria inwards the event horizon.
Why is it? Based on what data?

You are talking about a universe with overall curvature. That is a different matter than the curvature of space-time around a massive body due to gravity. A massive body will produce space-time curvature regardless of whether the Universe as a whole has any curvature or is flat. Don't confuse local curvature with universal curvature.

What is the chance that this model is not relevant for the event horizon?
Can you please prove that space time module works also at the event of horizon?
How the extreme conditions at that aria could affect the space time?
If we use this module for the event of horizon, why we can't use it for outside that aria?
Why not using it for the center Bulge or even for the whole galaxy?
Why do we insist to fix it only for that limited aria - Event horizon?

It's only a matter of degree. Space-time mixing happens in every day life as well, but the effects are too subtle to notice unless you have sufficiently-sensitive equipment (the phenomena of length contraction and time dilation are manifestations of this mixing). Here is an excerpt from "Black Holes & Time Warps" about this:


spacetimemix.jpg (622.89 kB . 711x1198 - viewed 1198 times)

It's just that, at the event horizon, the conditions become so extreme that the mixing becomes a complete swapping so that space becomes fully time-like. This is what defines the event horizon and what makes it different from other locations in a galaxy.

Therefore in the same token - if the space time can set a curvature in space, why it can't eliminate the speed limit?
Why under the space time module, the speed can't get to infinite.
Did we try to verify this issue in our space time modeling?

There is no reason for this to be the case. The speed of light in a vacuum has consistently been measured as finite and constant regardless of reference frame.

This particle can even be ejected from the event horizon if the BH is small enough.

Only if it is outside the horizon.

That proves that particle can orbits below the event horizon.

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion, but it's wrong. The closer you get to a gravitational source, the faster your orbit has to be. At the photon sphere, that required orbital speed is the speed of light. Inside of that radius, you would have to move faster than light to remain in orbit, which cannot be done with either light or material objects. So merely orbiting is not an option to prevent you from falling in. Please keep in mind that the inability to orbit is not the same as the inability to move away from the black hole. You can do that for so long as you are still outside the horizon.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

You are talking about a universe with overall curvature. That is a different matter than the curvature of space-time around a massive body due to gravity. A massive body will produce space-time curvature regardless of whether the Universe as a whole has any curvature or is flat. Don't confuse local curvature with universal curvature.

How do we know that  "A massive body will produce space-time curvature regardless of whether the Universe as a whole has any curvature or is flat?

spacetimemix.jpg (622.89 kB . 711x1198 - viewed 3 times)
It's just that, at the event horizon, the conditions become so extreme that the mixing becomes a complete swapping so that space becomes fully time-like. This is what defines the event horizon and what makes it different from other locations in a galaxy.

In the articale which you have offered there is not even one word about event horizon.
So, why did you decide to set the space time only below the event horizon?
There must be a solid proof for that. Would you kindly offer it?
However, if there is no mathematical roof for that, why the accretion disc can't be also part of the space time?
It is also around a massive Body.  The conditions there are also extreme. The orbital velocity could be above 0.3c.
If we can claim that the accretion disc could also be part of the space time, than nothing should also be ejected from it.
Why can't we look at the whole central bulge as space time?
Can you please prove it?

[Halc]

How do we know that  "A massive body will produce space-time curvature regardless of whether the Universe as a whole has any curvature or is flat?

GR theory, which predicted it before it was ever measured.

In the articale which you have offered there is not even one word about event horizon.
So, why did you decide to set the space time only below the event horizon?
There must be a solid proof for that. Would you kindly offer it?
However, if there is no mathematical roof for that, why the accretion disc can't be also part of the space time?

Not sure what you are asserting, but where the accretion disc is is part of spacetime, as is Earth.  There is arguably spacetime beyond the event horizon as well, but all events there are indefinitely far into our future.  If a particle is created there, it is created over a trillion years from now. There are no events that are simultaneous with events on the outside of the black hole.
This is a fair argument against there being mass inside a black hole, but lacking a unified field theory, the jury is honestly still out.

It is also around a massive Body. The conditions there are also extreme. The orbital velocity could be above 0.3c.
If we can claim that the accretion disc could also be part of the space time, than nothing should also be ejected from it.
Why can't we look at the whole central bulge as space time?

Who ever suggested otherwise? Conditions in spacetime are not extreme. Take Earth for an example. Things seem reasonable here. Conditions become extreme near massive dense objects, but its all still spacetime.

[Kryptid]

How do we know that  "A massive body will produce space-time curvature regardless of whether the Universe as a whole has any curvature or is flat?

The consequences of that curvature (time dilation, gravitational lensing, relativistic orbital precession, frame dragging and the geodetic effect) have been measured.

In the articale which you have offered there is not even one word about event horizon.
So, why did you decide to set the space time only below the event horizon?

What do you mean I decided to "set the space time"? Space-time is everywhere, not only below the horizon.

There must be a solid proof for that. Would you kindly offer it?
However, if there is no mathematical roof for that,

Go back and watch that PBS video I posted. They go into the math of the behavior of space-time below the horizon.

why the accretion disc can't be also part of the space time?

It is a part of space-time. Everything we know of is. Why wouldn't it be? The gravity in that area isn't strong enough to swap space and time, though.

It is also around a massive Body.  The conditions there are also extreme. The orbital velocity could be above 0.3c.

Not extreme enough. The escape velocity has to exceed the speed of light for this space-time swapping to take place.

If we can claim that the accretion disc could also be part of the space time, than nothing should also be ejected from it.

It's not inside of an event horizon.

Why can't we look at the whole central bulge as space time?
Can you please prove it?

Again, space-time is everywhere so I don't know what you are talking about.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Thanks Halc and Kryptid

where the accretion disc is is part of spacetime, as is Earth.

What do you mean I decided to "set the space time"? Space-time is everywhere, not only below the horizon.

space-time is everywhere so I don't know what you are talking about.

So now you both agree that even the accretion disc is under the space time.
However - we clearly see that 99% of the matter in the accretion disc is ejected outwards.
Hence
How could it be that the accretion disc which is fully under the impact of space time can eject most of its mass, while the event of horizon can't do so just because of the same space time.
You have stated that based on space-time, nothing could be ejected from inside the horizon:
Please see the following:

The gravitational force is finite, but that is not what inevitably draws particles towards the singularity once they get inside the horizon. The particles are driven by the swapping of space and time. Time travels forwards outside the horizon whether you want it to or not. Space travels inwards towards the singularity whether you want it to or not. It's like trying to swim upstream when the current is moving too fast for even an infinite force to swim against.

Why space time that works so nicely at the event of horizon and prevents from any particle to be ejected outwards, works so badly at the accretion disc and has no resistance for the massive ejection at that aria?
In other words -
If the space time has no objection that most of the particle can be ejected from the accretion disc, could it be that it also has no objection that particles can be ejected also below the horizon?
Why it prevents from particles to be ejected from the horizon, while it has no resistance that most of the particles can be ejected from the accretion disc?
Do you have better idea than space-time to show the difference between the horizon and the accretion?

[Halc]

So now you both agree that even the accretion disc is under the space time.

Spacetime is simply where and when events occur.

the accretion disc which is fully under the impact of space time

Spacetime has no impact.  As I said, it is simply where and when events occur.  It is a geometric 4D space in which a coordinate system can be mapped.

You have stated that based on space-time, nothing could be ejected from inside the horizon:

For the same reason I cannot give an apple to a hungry mammoth, no matter what force I put on the apple.  I am in the future of said mammoth and cannot push the apple back in time.  It isn't a matter of lacking the energy or force to do it.

Why space time that works so nicely at the event of horizon

Spacetime does not work so nicely at the event horizon.  There is a singularity there, meaning all the laws of physics break down.  Lacking a unified theory, we cannot meaningfully describe what goes on at the event horizon.

[Kryptid]

So now you both agree that even the accretion disc is under the space time.

"Under the space time" makes no sense. How can you be "under" space-time?

How could it be that the accretion disc which is fully under the impact of space time can eject most of its mass, while the event of horizon can't do so just because of the same space time.
You have stated that based on space-time, nothing could be ejected from inside the horizon:
Please see the following:

What you are missing is that space-time behaves differently inside of the horizon than it does outside of the horizon.

Why space time that works so nicely at the event of horizon and prevents from any particle to be ejected outwards, works so badly at the accretion disc and has no resistance for the massive ejection at that aria?
In other words -
If the space time has no objection that most of the particle can be ejected from the accretion disc, could it be that it also has no objection that particles can be ejected also below the horizon?
Why it prevents from particles to be ejected from the horizon, while it has no resistance that most of the particles can be ejected from the accretion disc?

Because space is fully time-like inside the horizon but it isn't outside the horizon.

Do you have better idea than space-time to show the difference between the horizon and the accretion?

The differing behavior of space-time at those two locations is what makes all of the difference. Space-time behaves differently in different reference frames. It behaves differently in strong gravitational fields than it does in weak ones. It behaves differently at high accelerations than at low ones. This "all or nothing" thinking process of yours is wrong.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

What you are missing is that space-time behaves differently inside of the horizon than it does outside of the horizon.

Because space is fully time-like inside the horizon but it isn't outside the horizon.

Thanks
So, there are two types of space-time
A. Fully time-like Space-time which works exactly up to the event Horizon - Nothing can escape from it.
B. Not fully time-like space time which works in the accretion disc - Everything can escape from it.
Questions:
1. How could it be that the two types of space-time behave so differently?
2. What is so unique in the "fully time-like" that prevents from any particle to escape, while his brother - the "None fully time-like" has no problem that everything can escape? Can you please show the different formulas for each one?
3. How the space-time knows exactly where is the border of the "fully time-like"?
4. Why the "fully time-like" is exactly located at the event horizon?
5. Why not 5% or 50% outwards or inwards from the horizon.
6. Would you kindly offer real proof for the border of the "fully time-like" space-time version (If possible -mathematical calculation)

[Kryptid]

So, there are two types of space-time
A. Fully time-like Space-time which works exactly up to the event Horizon - Nothing can escape from it.
B. Not fully time-like space time which works in the accretion disc - Everything can escape from it.

This is overly simplistic. There is actually a gradual transition from one to the other. Any time there is a gravitational field present, it causes some degree of space-time mixing. This causes objects in space to move in a preferred direction: towards the source of the field. In weak fields like on Earth, this direction is merely preferred but not mandatory. As the gravitational field becomes stronger, space becomes increasingly time-like and the preference for movement into the field becomes stronger. Once the field becomes so strong that the escape velocity reaches the speed of light space has become fully time-like and what was merely a preferred direction becomes a mandatory direction instead. It's like travelling down a river that goes faster and faster until it eventually becomes impossible to resist its flow.

Questions:
1. How the space-time knows exactly where is the border of the "fully time-like"?

Space-time doesn't "know" anything. It simply "is" fully time-like at the event horizon. This border automatically exists at any location where the escape velocity reaches the speed of light. So it is defined by gravity.

2. Why the "fully time-like" is exactly located at the event horizon?

Because that is the very thing that defines it. An event horizon is what it is specifically because nothing can get out of it and the reason nothing can get out is because space is fully time-like there.

3. Why not 5% or 50% outwards or inwards from the horizon.

Because then the event horizon wouldn't be an event horizon.

4. Would you kindly offer real proof for the border of the "fully time-like" space-time version (If possible -mathematical calculation)

The math is discussed in the PBS video, as well as here: http://www.jimhaldenwang.com/black_hole.htm

This page explains it using light cones: https://www.quora.com/If-the-pulling-force-inside-the-event-horizon-is-not-infinite-why-cant-I-push-myself-out-with-a-greater-force

For more information on light cones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone

[Halc]

Any time there is a gravitational field present, it causes some degree of space-time mixing. This causes objects in space to move in a preferred direction: towards the source of the field. In weak fields like on Earth, this direction is merely preferred but not mandatory.

Don't understand this.  There are 4 dimensions, and they don't seem to 'mix'.  Nothing moves through spacetime. They move through space, but have worldlines in spacetime. No worldline can be angled so much that its events become separated in a space-like manner.  That's the speed of light restriction. It's the same as saying that my worldline must be entirely contained in my own causal cones.
All this is no different inside the event horizon.  There's still 1 time and 3 spatial dimensions, but the event horizon is in the past light cone of any event in there.  None of it is in the future light cone.

As the gravitational field becomes stronger, space becomes increasingly time-like and the preference for movement into the field becomes stronger.

Not necessarily true inside the event horizon.  There are still the 3+1 dimensions with no preference for direction of movement through space. In theory, masses could form with stuff orbit them and such. There would be no obvious tidal force tearing such systems apart. The spacetime is reasonably normal and not different in a way that one is termed 'time-like' and the other not.

Once the field becomes so strong that the escape velocity reaches the speed of light space has become fully time-like and what was merely a preferred direction becomes a mandatory direction instead. It's like travelling down a river that goes faster and faster until it eventually becomes impossible to resist its flow.

I find the river a poor analogy because sufficient force would allow one to resist any arbitrarily large flow.  The river is still space. Time is not something that flows in a spacetime model.

[Kryptid]

Don't understand this.  There are 4 dimensions, and they don't seem to 'mix'.  Nothing moves through spacetime. They move through space, but have worldlines in spacetime. No worldline can be angled so much that its events become separated in a space-like manner.  That's the speed of light restriction. It's the same as saying that my worldline must be entirely contained in my own causal cones.
All this is no different inside the event horizon.  There's still 1 time and 3 spatial dimensions, but the event horizon is in the past light cone of any event in there.  None of it is in the future light cone.

I'm just using the terminology that Kip Thorne uses in his book (see the page I scanned above). The main thrust of what I'm saying is that the light cone tilting is not something that happens suddenly at the event horizon. It becomes more and more tilted as you approach it.

Not necessarily true inside the event horizon.  There are still the 3+1 dimensions with no preference for direction of movement through space. In theory, masses could form with stuff orbit them and such. There would be no obvious tidal force tearing such systems apart. The spacetime is reasonably normal and not different in a way that one is termed 'time-like' and the other not.

Perhaps my terminology is poor then. I figured there were degrees of "time-like"-ness.

I find the river a poor analogy because sufficient force would allow one to resist any arbitrarily large flow.  The river is still space. Time is not something that flows in a spacetime model.

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps I could instead say that the river flows at the speed of light. Then it becomes more apparent that force alone won't allow you to resist it.

[Halc]

I'm just using the terminology that Kip Thorne uses in his book (see the page I scanned above).

OK.  As for 'mixing', it just means that space and time are the same thing that can be measured in the same units if you wish. That's what spacetime is, and one does not move through spacetime.
I don't see references to 'time-like' spacetime, like it's something different.  The whole scanned page just seems to run through the basics of relativity of simultaneity.  That's the terminology that prompted my post. Maybe a different page uses such terms in a discussion involving an event horizon. I've not seen the book.

The main thrust of what I'm saying is that the light cone tilting is not something that happens suddenly at the event horizon. It becomes more and more tilted as you approach it.

Agree. I've seen pictures where the tilt is abrupt at the event horizon, but it doesn't work that way.  Picture an object somewhat near a black hole.  Time moves upward in the picture, with the black hole spatially off to the right. The light cones of any event along that worldline point more or less up and down for future and past respectively. The past cone never touches the event horizon, even in the original picture where it grows straight down.  So the presence of the black hole already deforms the past light cone into a shape that isn't a cone.
As the worldline of the object approaches the event horizon, the light cone from any event along that line begins to tilt to the right so the future part of the cone begins to point rightward and the past cone away from it. As you get close, very little of the future light cone fails to intersect the event horizon.
At the event horizon is a singularity and there are not defined cones there.  In this sense, the transition is not a clean one.
For events inside, the event horizon does not exist anywhere in the future light cone, but physics is not particularly abnormal. You could live there. In my picture, the light cones now point left and right instead of up and down.  Vertical in the picture (what used to be the time dimension) is now just one of the 3 spatial dimensions.

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps I could instead say that the river flows at the speed of light. Then it becomes more apparent that force alone won't allow you to resist it.

Force (alone or with help) will not allow you to push an object into the past. Speed of light restriction makes it sound like it's a spatially separated place you're trying to get to and you just can't go fast enough.  No.  It's a temporal separation, and you can't travel back in time. That's what prevents inside events from having a causal effect on the outside.

[Kryptid]

Halc, I am thankful that you are actively participating in this thread. Space-time swapping in a black hole is not something I have ever delved into in depth before this debate started. I can use all the correction I can get.

For others reading this thread: if in doubt, refer to Halc.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

An event horizon is what it is specifically because nothing can get out of it and the reason nothing can get out is because space is fully time-like there.

Let's see if I understand it correctly:
We all know the meaning of Event horizon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizon
In astrophysics, an event horizon is a boundary beyond which events cannot affect an observer on the opposite side of it. An event horizon is most commonly associated with black holes, where gravitational forces are so strong that light cannot escape.
This is very clear.
Therefore, based on that and our understanding of Space time - we have decided that the border of the "fully time-like" space time is at the event horizon:

An event horizon is what it is specifically because nothing can get out of it and the reason nothing can get out is because space is fully time-like there.

So far so good.
However, now we use the space time to prove that nothing can escape from this point.

An event horizon is what it is specifically because nothing can get out of it and the reason nothing can get out is because space is fully time-like there.

There must be an error in this logic.
How can we say?
The boarder of the" fully time-like" space time is at the event of horizon because nothing can escape from that point and than in order to proof that nothing can escape from there we use the space-time formula.
Sorry -
Nothing can escape from the event horizon based on its meaning and not because of space-time.
Therefore, space time can't be used as a formula or evidence to proof that nothing can escape from the horizon.
This approach has a built in logical error in my point of view.
Hence, the following statement isn't logical:
"An event horizon is what it is specifically because space is fully time-like there".

[Kryptid]

The boarder of the" fully time-like" space time is at the event of horizon because nothing can escape from that point and than in order to proof that nothing can escape from there we use the space-time formula.

You have it backwards. The reason nothing can escape is because space is time-like within the horizon. This, in turn, is what causes it to be an event horizon.

There must be an error in this logic.

Then show where the math is wrong.

Nothing can escape from the event horizon based on its meaning and not because of space-time.

You are confusing the definition of an event horizon with what causes it to be an event horizon. This is like arguing that, "water is wet based on its meaning and not because of its molecular properties".