...But in many cases, I do not see e.g. how my pointing out sloppy wording (sloppy enough that it could lead to nonsensical conclusions) is "word games"; I would in fact argue it's the other person (unintentionally?) engaging in such activities....
Actually, apart from the evasive dodging of my three perfectly clear 'Are you' questions in #164, it was YOU that used sloppy language and logic, e.g. on various occasions carelessly referring to light speed c without tying down to particular context or specifying whether proper or coordinate c was meant. Failing such encouraging confusion - or allowing obfuscation. Won't bother citing posts and lines now - check back and they are there. That issue was a fork off a fork and I won't waste further time over such matters.
To everyone else here with some interest left:
The key issue re static E & B fields in GR can be summarized very simply. They don't respect gravitational metric fields at all. So for instance the radial field lines of a point charge in flat spacetime will continue to be detected by a distant observer without any distortions, were a massive object to be placed in the vicinity but not coincident with the charge. Yet a point light source at the same location as the charge will be received with various amounts of redshift and angular deflection - depending on the particulars of relative location of point source and gravitating mass. And similarly for anything else that has to traverse distorted spacetime - except, magically, static E & B fields!
Which should tell anyone with a sense for logical consistency the standard GR formulation of 'EM fields in curved spacetime' is whacky.
One more consideration to leave you all with. Getting back to the extreme case of 'charged BH', an oft quoted go-to article that claims to qualitatively justify the notion is:
https://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~ebunn/ajpans/ajpans.html
Skipping past the unconvincing classical EM argument, the quantized aka QED 'resolution' boils down to claiming there is a 'sufficient flux' of 'infinitely fast virtual photons' that can cross the BH EH with ease and continue to mediate the external static E field.
There are two gaping holes in that argument.
1: Given the infalling BH charge is not statically located but in free-fall, a continuous back-and-forth exchange of 'virtual photons' is required on that perturbative picture. But coordinate time stands still at the EH. Any 'photon exchange machinery' there is frozed solid wrt the outside. Hence it doesn't matter if one allows 'infinite speed' of individual virtual photons - the rate of exchange to the outside is zero. There can be no logical exemption to that. Bummer.
2: The notion of 'infinie speed' of virtual photons comprising static E & B fields is itself quite easily disproven. A well verified fact is that all 3 possible components of the E field of a Hertzian dipole oscillator are operated on by the same phase factor exp(-jkr) - see e.g. (19) here:
http://www.waves.utoronto.ca/prof/svhum/ece422/notes/05-dipole.pdf
If you don't know how to read that equation I'll just say it shows the so-called quasi-static near field - corresponding to 'virtual photon mediated' - is limited to propagating at speed c just like ordinary radiation is. Otherwise, someone would have long ago been offering superluminal relay communications lines. Another bummer.
I raised both above points and earlier ones mentioned this thread with 'top-notch' physics buffs way back at PhysicsForums. Only response was stony silence. No surprise.
