Strange

One day, science may be able to. (But not if scientists had your nihilistic "there are unanswered questions so we should give up" attitude.)

Only if naively extrapolated. There is no real evidence for a "beginning". Tricky question. Firstly, relativistic mass is a (potentially misleading) concept from special relativity. It only applies locally, when things are in motion relative to one another with no significant gravity. It doesn't really apply in cases where GR has to be used (like cosmology). That also means that relativistic mass (which is just a way of accounting for the total energy of the system) doesn't contribute to gravity (at least, not in any easy to calculate way). And things aren't really being accelerated by expansion - there is no force acting on them. They just naturally tend to get further apart in the absence of any force (which is why gravitational force, for example, holds galaxies and galaxy clusters together). Whether the expansion of the the universe slows down or speeds up is dependent on the total mass-energy density of the universe. The accelerating expansion can be explained by the presence of a constant amount of energy per unit volume. As the volume has increased, this energy has come to exceed the effects of gravity that was previously slowing expansion.

So, no evidence and you agree that it doesn't fit with existing (well-tested) theory. Sounds like it is wrong then. No reason why I (or anyone else) should. It is your half-baked idea, it is up to you to support it.

Some probably may a finite universe, some may prefer an infinite one. But that has nothing to do with science. He may have done some work on it. But it is a huge area of research, with many people developing new ideas. Most famously, there is string theory, but also loop quantum gravity, causal dynamical triangulation, and several others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity

Apparently. You said you could present evidence but you haven't. Nope. I think you are confusing brainfarts with science. A circle is (a special case of) an ellipse. http://radio.astro.gla.ac.uk/a1dynamics/ellproof.pdf You cannot derive your egg shape from Newton's laws, can you?

Good. Go on then. Which results in an elliptical orbit. So far: no evidence and contradicted by theory. Fail.

Examples? Have you read any Chaucer? Or Shakespeare? Or even fiction written in the 60s? You will find lots of words that are no longer in use. Interesting. They are still in use in parts of the North of England. Where does your dialect come from? (These are examples of useful words that have disappeared from most English dialects.)

Can you present the evidence that the orbits are egg-shaped? Also, Can you show the required modifications to Newton's law of gravity? Or is this just some random idea you have made up for no reason?

Ironic from someone who thinks we should accept the argument "but Einstein said so".

It would mean that all the mass (finite or infinite) of the universe was in zero volume and there was no "before". For these, and the reasons given above, no one seriously believes a singularity represents physical reality. There are various (currently untestable) ideas for the early universe. For example, a "big bounce" (the universe formed from the collapse of an earlier universe), "eternal inflation" (new universes are constantly being created) and some recent attempts to combine quantum theory with GR suggest that the universe is infinitely old. We will probably need a proper theory of quantum gravity before we can answer such questions.

You still have NOT shown how you get your results. Let's take an example.... 1. Where does "44,000,000,000,000w of energy" come from? 2. Converting mass to energy with E=mc2 gives you joules not watts. How did you get watts? 3. You have not shown what result you get when you convert the mass to energy. So, if we take your 5.972 x 1024 kg and multiply by c2 we get 5.367 x 1041 joules. That is 5367 followed by 38 zeroes. Therefore your 44 trillion watts is irrelevant. 4. Where does the number "44421698952483" come from? How did you calculate that? 5. How exactly do you get 20547 watts? For comparison, if I multiply 2032 kg by c2, I get 1.862 x 1020 joules. This is (a) much bigger than your number and (b) joules not watts. Here: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2032+kg+*+c%5E2 6. How do you calculate "0.03279285053334" ? Until you are willing / able to answer these questions, there is little point continuing. In other words, [latex]P \propto \frac 1 {E + Mc^2}[/latex]. You still have the problem that because this just says "proportional to" it is not possible to calculate a value of P. (Which may explain why you have just invented the numbers rather than calculating them).

The black hole in our galaxy is dormant. You have a thread on its almost nonexistent accretion disk. Most black holes appear to be dormant (i.e. not growing)

Sigh. I didn't want you to just repeat everything you have said before. I just want you to answer one simple question: Please show, concisely, how you calculate that number. Just a few lines showing the calculation please. And after that you can consider these: Why is V in the equation if volume is irrelevant? Why are you using P/1 when I have already explained what "inversely proportional" means? You have mentioned "inverse square" but there are no powers of 2 in your equation? What does it mean to have an "=" on the RHS? That makes no mathematical sense. Do you understand basic algebra and dimensional analysis?

Sorry, I can't access that. Please present it here. Thank you.

Please show us how you calculate this number with your equation.

P.s. I can't (and wouldn't) watch videos Sounds exciting !

What is happening?

Still waiting...

Apart from those that are impossible.

How about "all of them" and "basically made up nonsense"?

I though that was the point you were making -- which seems have gone over JC's head (see what I did there). And would be a monumentally stupid argument, anyway.

Where does 0.9993281288633913 come from? Why is V in the equation if volume is irrelevant? Why are you using P/1 whenI have already explained what "inversely proportional" means? You have mentioned "inverse square" but there are no powers of 2 in your equation? What does it mean to have an "=" on the RHS? That makes no mathematical sense. Do you understand basic algebra and dimensional analysis?

The amount of mass that falls into a black hole is minute, as a fraction of the mass of the galaxy. How about some numbers instead of guesses?

Can you explain how you get these numbers? Where did you get the energy of the Higgs field? Where did you get the ground state energy of a hydrogen atom? How do you convert these to joules/meter? Incidentally, "jm" is wrong in at least two ways. The symbol for souls is J not j. Also, jm would be joule-meters. Joules per meter should be either J/m or J m-1. How do you calculate this from the above values? Please show all the steps involved. How do you calculate this (1.999999999972139 seconds) from the equation? Please show all the steps. They are not measured. So you have a prediction for time dilation at the event horizon that differs from GR. That is good because it means that if we could ever measure this, we could see which was closest to reality. Unfortunately, we cant. So... Can you show, in detail, how you calculate the time dilation for a GPS satellite with your equation?

But then again, they spoke Aramaic which isn't written with our alphabet. (Although it doesn't have the phoneme represented by the J in English. But then most other languages don't pronounce his name that way.)