>>8108281Ok, listen, I will reply one last time, since I really feel I'm wasting my time. You are making the basic mistake of mixing up scientific theories, hypotheses and the colloquial use of the word theory.
A scientific theory has been validated (not proven, because you can never definitely prove anything, only disprove) through experimentation and observation. This is quite different from the colloquial theory, which would be yourself guessing what could have happened without any evidence to back it up.
That being said, we are really, really sure black holes can have a wide range of volumes (e.g.,miniature black holes were hypothesized through the theory of relativity) from "average" to "super-massive" and also that no such thing as infinite mass actually exists. Not even at the center of the black hole.
An increasing expansion rate means everything is getting farther away from everything at an increasing speed. This rules out a retraction of space as you would suggest, because the gravitational "pull" isn't strong enough. Even as of now, the only "object" not getting away from us, but actually getting attracted is Andromeda (we will then fuse with that galaxy or get ripped apart and separate, maybe both partially), so given enough time everything will be so far away you won't be able to see the closest star.
That is, unless some magical incident occurs and the universe rewinds, but since the universe is accelerating and not decelerating, your scenario seems sort of unlikely.
What else? Oh yeah, you stated galaxies expand and retract on their own while also alternating. I told you no such thing has ever been observed. You suggest that's "only a theory" contradicting yours, but it's not. It's actually you who owes us some evidence or at least some kind of observable hint to back-up your hypothesis.
(continued)
