The observables in our sky do not match any interior metric for a black hole. In particular generically black hole metrics concentrate a central mass, and (from a Raychaudhuri equation perspective) the known sources of shears and pressures that work against this concentration are insufficiently strong to block ever greater collapse. Additionally, shears and pressures enter into the stress-energy tensor. That's why the centre of a BH can be a singularity.

Observations of distant galaxies and the cosmic microwave background do match the (expanding vacuum) Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric with the distribution of matter-density described by the Friedmann equations. Distant galaxies fill the sky and are receding from us, from our perspective; they are not concentrating in any sort of middle.

There is insufficient evidence to conclude that a big crunch is in our future.

"Pure energy" is represented in the stress-energy tensor just fine. General relativity's Einstein Field Equations exactly relates the stress-energy tensor to the curvature of spacetime. It gravitates, your argument just falls down.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor#/...>

Science mapped out our solar system and developed base12 to account for rotation and orbit.

What I haven't found is an accounting of our solar system's patterns in our galaxy.

We know about axial precession but we don't know the official cause and some suspect it's related to a pull from another galaxy or a swayish wobble from our solar system's rotation in the galaxy.

Same for a supposed magnetic flip in the earths core. They might be related but we seemingly only know of the precession measured as 1 degree per 72 years but the magnetic north pole doesn't align with any noted patterns nor cause.

Thank you for your comment. I've heard the parent argument earlier as well. I wasn't aware of these points.