Doesn't 'dark matter' have as a problem self contradicting properties per gravity?
Since the inner stars revolve too slowly & the outer stars too fast aka "dark matter' would be a 'faucet washer' shape in a disk galaxy.
The outer edge of that configuration seems immune to gravity, with all the dark matter on its inside & none on the outside, yet over billions of years it doesn't seem to migrate inward.
Nor does proposed 'dark matter' pile up around stars & planets amplifying their gravities.
Yet in contradiction, a galaxy's proposed 'dark matter' does follow the gravitational curve when orbiting/curving around an external galaxy.
Sometimes it follows gravity & sometimes not?
Pls explain. Thx.
In respect to black holes, like most things, there is more than one way to skin a cat ( what all the ways have in common is the cat doesn't like any of them ). With the classical black hole, everything inside the event horizon is speculation. Even equations used to give answers about the conditions inside the event horizon cannot be compared with reality by observation.
On to skinning the cat a different way. The following is in my two cent opinion (IMTCO).
The following is dropping out consideration of dark energy and dark matter except with black holes.
If a nebula is a fair example of the universe shortly after the microwave background radiation era, than a star's photo sphere would have similar conditions to those at the microwave background. A neutron star has a lot in common with the early universe main features. (Consisting of neutrons, photons, exotic particles and photons.) Black holes would represent an even younger universe consisting photons or dark matter or dark energy.
PS. I haven't read any reason why black holes couldn't consist of photons or dark matter or positively curved dark energy.