For any given spherical object (not reduced to BH singulairty), all the points including interior points will lie on respective Event Horizon (an interior point respective EH is by considering the mass inner to this point), then to satisfy this condition,

r = 2Gm/c^2

(where m is the mass of the inner sphere of radius r).

Incorrect; they must lie on

__or within__ their Schwarzschild radius.

This will give us: m = rc^2/2G

from this dm/dr = c^2/2G

This is the change with respect to the Schwarzschild radius of the minimum mass necessary to satisfy the Schwarzschild condition.

This will give the density profile as

d(r) = c^2/(8piGr^2) or of the order (5.3* 10^25)/r^2 kg/m3.

By setting "the minimum mass necessary to satisfy the Schwarzschild condition" equal to "the encompassed mass" and the "Schwarzschild radius" equal to the "radial coordinate" you have derived a density profile that will be exactly at the Schwarzschild condition for all points including interior points.

[**This density profile is for all the points (surface+interior) to be on their respective EH], but for all the points to be beneath their respective EH, the density must be higher than above**

that is d(r) > 5.3*10^25/r^2 kg/m3.

Incorrect. I can build a density profile that has a large mass in its center, with an event horizon extending far beyond it, and with a spherical shell at the outer edge of this region. Or formulated the other way around: I can have a spherical shell that's at the edge of the event horizon of the inner core. Such a density distribution has d(r)=0 between the inner core and the outer shell, thus proving that your condition on a minimum density is not necessary in general.

[No, realistic object when at EH will satisfy this density profile

Which is, as just proven (again) not necessary. Additionally, neutron stars can reach that density in their outer regions.

and hence it can be easily deduced that when the object is at EH, it is not necessary that all the inner shell points will also lie on their respective EHs.]

This conclusion I do not disagree with; it's the derivation leading up to it that's the problem.

NotEinstein is not able to produce any credible objection to this,

Or: "RajeshTrivedi has been unable to understand all the credible objections to this". One of the two.

If you think I have been trolling, please contact the moderation and have them deal with it.

But since this observation of mine, is coupled with some kind of alternative proposal,

No, it's coupled with high school level math that contains many mistakes, unspoken assumption, and a fundamental lack of understanding of GR.

and people like NotEinstein are supporters of mainstream,

I'm a supporter of truth, mostly. Your derivation is wrong.

so the moderator team is also keeping a blind eye to his persistent incorrect objection.

Is this a "it's a conspiracy" claim?

But if you don't like the members of this forum, if you don't like the premise of this forum ("science forums"), and you don't like the moderation of this forum, might I suggest you find another place where you feel more accepted? You're only hurting yourself more by staying here.