The Big Bang Bamma

Such things as two-dimensional spheres may exist on paper only, so "scientific" papers is where all the possible expansion of the universe is confined to. In real terms though all the spatial dimensions come as a package. That is, all the three either exist at once or none of them will. Any model and 2-D representation of a sphere is a good case in point, is a static snapshot of a process that is dynamic by definition.
Dynamic means everything to do with motion while that two dimensional surface of a sphere is nothing but space and time in an ideal static representation. That ideal space is reckoning without the relative bodies in motion, the motion the space can exist only as an attribute or aspect of. Space may not exist as such and as a thing apart from the motion it is filled with and measured by. Space is only a relative quality of motion and distances are but quantitative expressions of that intrinsic aspect of motion called space. You may say that space is momentum in action. In the human, observational terms distance is the visible momentum. The question here is can anything with no depth possess any width or length? Yes, of course, it can, but as a mathematical object and on paper only. As a static representation. In real terms a square on a piece of paper is but a bottom plane of a cube that could be potentially drawn in the air above the square. The cube in the air is the foundation the plane on the paper is resting upon implicitly and it may not exist otherwise. Zero depth in reality may allow only zero angle to the other two dimensions. A thing lacking any one of the three dimensions may lack all the three necessarily. A single dimension lacking it instantly shrinks into a dimensionless point. Even such a point is again possible only as an imaginary static entity. A purely mathematical object.Any motion started kills the point on the spot instantly filling it up with all dimensions at once. Straight line is point in motion and the reality of motion, that is all gravity after all, is such that straight lines are not sustainable for any too long tending to curve thus straight line in motion is a circle and circle in motion is a sphere.In other words straight line is a circle at rest while a point is a motionless straight line. With rest and motion being strictly relative to each other and mutually dependent, neither may exist on its own. Any curve may need the backdrop of a plane real or imaginary to remain a curve.
Therefore all motion implies all the three dimensions, and that point outside the piece of paper as soon as it is set in motion may progressively describe all the curves intrinsic in its motion ending up as a sphere necessarily.
From that reasoning a few natural conclusions could be logically arrived at necessarily.
Time assumed as another necessary attribute of motion in space and given space and time equivalence the universe thought of as either motion in space-time or space-time in motion which are interchangeable descriptions of one and the same process, must be a moving sphere bounded by itself.
That would make it infinite and finite at once; for example bounded in space yet lacking a boundary in time or the other way round.
That, of course, precludes the very possibility of any beginning, end or centre either to space or time making all such assumptions perfectly meaningless and naive.Neither any expansion is possible following that necessary line of thinking, for, with both space and time being the intrinsic attributes of motion inseparable from the motion itself, an expansion or accumulation of space as a function of time would mean an expansion of motion itself which is absurd as it may imply that the sphere containing all the relative motion or rather being itself that motion can possibly shrink to a point of absolute rest and that such a motionless point may be the source and a universal beginning of all motion to be expanded later.I'd like to add a quote from Alexander Franklin Mayer's lecture as it expresses so well the unity of space and motion I was talking about."Mass-energy creates and shapes space like words that make up a sentence. Take away all the words (galaxies) and you have nothing, not even space that is empty. On a cosmic scale there is no such thing as 'empty space', just as there is no such thing as an 'empty sentence' that has no words."Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : Addition of a quote.

Such things as two-dimensional spheres may exist on paper only, so "scientific" papers is where all the possible expansion of the universe is confined to. In real terms though all the spatial dimensions come as a package. That is, all the three either exist at once or none of them will. Any model and 2-D representation of a sphere is a good case in point, is a static snapshot of a process that is dynamic by definition.
Dynamic means everything to do with motion while that two dimensional surface of a sphere is nothing but space and time in an ideal static representation. That ideal space is reckoning without the relative bodies in motion, the motion the space can exist only as an attribute or aspect of. Space may not exist as such and as a thing apart from the motion it is filled with and measured by. Space is only a relative quality of motion and distances are but quantitative expressions of that intrinsic aspect of motion called space. You may say that space is momentum in action. In the human, observational terms distance is the visible momentum. The question here is can anything with no depth possess any width or length? Yes, of course, it can, but as a mathematical object and on paper only. As a static representation. In real terms a square on a piece of paper is but a bottom plane of a cube that could be potentially drawn in the air above the square. The cube in the air is the foundation the plane on the paper is resting upon implicitly and it may not exist otherwise. Zero depth in reality may allow only zero angle to the other two dimensions. A thing lacking any one of the three dimensions may lack all the three necessarily. A single dimension lacking it instantly shrinks into a dimensionless point. Even such a point is again possible only as an imaginary static entity. A purely mathematical object.Any motion started kills the point on the spot instantly filling it up with all dimensions at once. Straight line is point in motion and the reality of motion, that is all gravity after all, is such that straight lines are not sustainable for any too long tending to curve thus straight line in motion is a circle and circle in motion is a sphere.In other words straight line is a circle at rest while a point is a motionless straight line. With rest and motion being strictly relative to each other and mutually dependent, neither may exist on its own. Any curve may need the backdrop of a plane real or imaginary to remain a curve.
Therefore all motion implies all the three dimensions, and that point outside the piece of paper as soon as it is set in motion may progressively describe all the curves intrinsic in its motion ending up as a sphere necessarily.
From that reasoning a few natural conclusions could be logically arrived at necessarily.
Time assumed as another necessary attribute of motion in space and given space and time equivalence the universe thought of as either motion in space-time or space-time in motion which are interchangeable descriptions of one and the same process, must be a moving sphere bounded by itself.
That would make it infinite and finite at once; for example bounded in space yet lacking a boundary in time or the other way round.
That, of course, precludes the very possibility of any beginning, end or centre either to space or time making all such assumptions perfectly meaningless and naive.Neither any expansion is possible following that necessary line of thinking, for, with both space and time being the intrinsic attributes of motion inseparable from the motion itself, an expansion or accumulation of space as a function of time would mean an expansion of motion itself which is absurd as it may imply that the sphere containing all the relative motion or rather being itself that motion can possibly shrink to a point of absolute rest and that such a motionless point may be the source and a universal beginning of all motion to be expanded later.