That is the Black Hole model, Aaron.
That is not the Black Eye model.
Since you are now using a material example, the inside of planet Earth, let's investigate what we know abut this model because there are strong similarities and distinct differences.
You are absolutely right that at the edge of the planet, the entire planet pulls on us, so that spot is indeed where gravity is the strongest, experienced by the individual in that spot.
Then, we are moving inside the planet, and halfway the gravitational forces are more diverse, just as you mention.
When in the net-zero gravitational spot of planet Earth, we see something quite similar to the model I am using. It does not occur due to gravity, but due to pressure. We find:
1/ Solid inner core
2/ Fluid inner core
Do you recognize the Eye?
The solid inner core does not move; it may be capable of turning as a whole, but the individual aspects of the inner core are all aligned. Due to pressure there is no motion in the solid inner core of our planet. It is material, but its behavior is an eye of zero motion.
Right where pressure is just a tad shy of making that ultimately solidifying stance, on the edge of the solid inner core, that is where the fluid inner core starts. The tiniest friction will cause that part of the inner core to be fluid. The claim is that this fluid inner core churns like crazy (like the wall of the eye of the storm), making our planet a warm planet.
Composition-wise, both parts of the inner core are quite similar. Yet one part is Motion-zero, and the other part is then Motion-plus.
You may argue that pressure is the contributing aspect for the material center of the Earth, and not gravity, and that is correct. But we are also talking about the model for a planet, so we must address both gravity and pressure. We can see that gravity and pressure do not function the same way. And we must also agree that the material reality is a material reality of 1 and not a material reality of many.
For a galaxy it may appear to be the same model, but it is not because the masses will not end up becoming a single mass. They will never become a single mass. Therefore, we find an opposite action.
Do you see it?
You were still working with the Black Hole model to undermine the Black Eye model. You are pointing at a mustache and are therefore saying that it cannot be Eve. I am saying that that is not a mustache.
--
Another point to bring into the discussion is that we do not see forces; we only see the circumstances that declare there are forces out there.
When the wind picks up, we actually do not see the wind but rather the tree leaves and the branches moved by the wind. Take a picture of the wind, and there is nothing to show when there isn't something actually blowing along with the wind.
So, when we declare gravity to be something, then we have to point to the specific sources for gravity; we are actually not capable of pointing to gravity in a galaxy because our instruments do not detect gravity, only the resulting outcomes. We know gravity is associated with masses, and we can view the behavior of masses to declare what we see about gravity. Yet we can see forces in more than one model depending on the specific circumstances.
Planet Earth? Simpler model than a galaxy.
So, that is how the Black Hole and Black Eye models differ.
One declares gravity with the strongest kind of gravity sitting right in the center, and the other declares gravity with the strongest pull in opposite direction sitting right in the center.
Adam and Eve. Don't make them one and the same because they are not. Don't make one more important than the other because they are distinct and on some level incomparable.
Let the scientific data speak, and make sure the model is applied only at the end of collecting all data and not picked prior. Then, there will be two models available for us, and Occam's Razor will pick the simpler one, the one in which all is explained by all that is scientifically present.
