Some of the problems you are having with cosmologists are because you are, I think, ignoring gravitational energy. You should take a trip out to Hanford and visit our observatory (LIGO). Please let me know before you go and I will try to arrange for you to get a VIP tour.
Have there actually been some results from LIGO, actual detection of gravitational waves correlated with anything? But I assure you my problems with cosmologists go far beyond that, and actually they are my problems with most mainstream scientists; people think they already know everything about everything precludes them from learning anything new about anything.
Ouch. I hope that isn't true. It certainly isn't true for cosmologists, most of whom have their heads in the stars, so to speak.
It's not universally true for any science but it seems the people who are the most likely to take the position that they know everything also happen to be the most vocal. But yes, I've run into people who are very open to alternative ideas, but I've also run into quite a few that are totally locked into mainstream accepted theories even when those theories don't agree with observational data. Personally, I prefer the position that Feynman took, if a theory doesn't agree with the data, it's wrong, no matter how mathematically elegant it might be, if it doesn't agree with the data it's wrong. Big-bang cosmology doesn't agree with observational data in many many areas. The problem is nobody that I am aware of has devised an alternative that does agree with all the data.
LIGO hasn't detected anything yet, because the sensitivity of the instrument isn't good enough yet. We have achieved the level of sensitivity that the interferometer was designed for (~10^-23m), and we have retrofit specifications that will bring us down to 10^-25, at which point we expect to see an essentially continuous series of events. An amazing amount of fundamental science has been done in the areas of seismic isolation, laser signal stabilisation, and signal processing (including numerical relativity - a desperately difficult field). All of this work has relevance to other terrestrial sciences, and practical engineering value. One easily conceivable application would be to seismology, where the instrumentation and analytic techniques developed within LIGO can be applied to the monitoring and modeling of the dynamic geology of The Earth.
See this is where you and my views depart. You are assuming it is just because it wasn't sensitive enough. Me, I'll wait and see. When and if it detects something I'll be interested, but I'm not going to hold my breath. I'll accept a theory as being at least a useful model when a prediction that theory makes is confirmed. I won't just assume the theory is right and that the instruments aren't sensitive enough.
I have known scientists who not only believed in extra-terrestrial visitation, but who believed that they had personally been visited (they all claimed that their singular good fortune could be attibuted to their devout belief in Jesus Christ - Make of that what you will).
This is an area of interest for me as I've had such an encounter personally when I was ten. A waking encounter, an invitation not an abduction, by beings that don't quite match the description of anything I've ever heard or read but they definitely weren't from Kansas. In 38 years since, it's not repeated, though now I've photographed anomalous aerial phenomena on several occasions, nothing resembling what I boarded. But that one experience makes it a non-question for me; something from somewhere gets here. I saw the technology involved but do not understand it. I don't know where they are from. I don't attribute it to a devout belief in anything other that some form of intelligent life capable of travel from somewhere got here and I they I was of interest to them for reasons I do not understand even 38 years later.
As for Jesus Christ, I do believe a person who is personified as Jesus Christ existed; lived; did many things described in the Bible; and I believe was reasonably accurately quoted in the books Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I don't know what the proper pronunciation of his name is given that I've never studied Greek or Hebrew. I believe the hell-and-heaven judgment and condemnation message are the products of politics, that the council of nicea removed two thirds of the Bible because it didn't fit well with their political agenda, and that to this date, the Bible and peoples religious beliefs are still being used to manipulate people in very negative and detrimental ways.
I believe that churches that teach that Christ came to absolve us of our sins really aren't getting the message of Christ. Jesus says time and time again, judge not lest ye be judged and that if you do not judge you will not be judged, if you forgive you will be forgiven. Jesus also said that of all the commandments, loving God and our fellow man were the most important. I believe Christ is a savior in the sense that he provided instructions for our salvation, not simply by grace, it involves taking personal responsibility for how we relate to everyone else.
I count myself as a Christian, in as much as I believe Jesus was real and I believe his message was valid; but I don't buy that the Bible is the unadulterated word of God. Save for those four books, the bulk of the Bible is modified Greek stories (change the names and change from polytheism to monotheism) which are modified Egyptian stories, which are modified Sumerian or Mesopotamian stories; and they in turn are probably derived from even prior civilizations of which we are mostly unaware. In those stories, there are truths to be found but they are of a metaphoric nature, not a literal one.
Well now I imagine that I've pissed off pretty much everyone, the atheists, Christians, and probably the members of most other religions, not my intent, but neither do I care to be shy about what I do believe, and my beliefs are not set in stone but open to modifications which is another reason I express them.
The variety of character and personality of scientists is as varied as that of any other group of people. Just as you would not pick a doctor out of the phone book and follow all of his advice until doomsday (or your own personal doomsday) if he wasn't helping you, you're not obliged to believe the theories or even the experimental results of any given scientist. I know close to 150 cosmologists, and I can state with assurance that they are a mixed bag of nuts, not all to be tarred together with even the broadest brush.
On that note we do not disagree, but I've met more than a few who have the "my way or the highway" approach, if you're not willing to buy into what they believe then there is no basis for discussion.