Juan Maldacena says here: "For a very massive and very compact object the deformation (or warping) of spacetime can have a big effect. For example, on the surface of a neutron star a clock runs slower, at 70 percent of the speed of a clock far away. In fact, you can have an object that is so massive that time comes to a complete standstill. These are black holes."
(from https://www.ias.edu/ideas/2011/maldacena-black-holes-string-theory)
It is very clear that he refers to time-dilation and that the clock runs at 70% of the speed of a clock in another reference frame. When the clock is at the event horizon though it stops. Obviously there is an infinity there. We can talk about relative speeds until we reach a 0%. "time comes to a complete standstill"
When I ask about black holes many people point to the central singularity. It seems though that for time to come to a halt at the event horizon we must also call this a singularity. Where am I wrong in my thinking?
For time to stop there at EH curvature must be already at maximum (if a maximum is possible). How can we proceed to think beyond this and why do so many people ignore the logical singularity at the horizon in favour of a central one?
I am not asking for opinions - what I mean specifically is why we still assume there is a central singularity when the metric arrives at zero long before that - why is that approach still taken?
and can a zero be not absolute when one considers quantum mechanics?