One issue you seem to be having is on insisting that the nature of the inside of the universe (space, time etc) exist outside the universe... and you are applying concepts from inside the universe (e.g. expansion) to the higher-order reality in which the universe may reside. But it is not as simple as this. Imagine the universe is the TARDIS from Dr.Who (if you know that show), but that the inside of the TARDIS is expanding, growing, new rooms being added all the time. It is not expanding INTO anything, it is creating the additional space. From the outside - from the higher-order reality - the TARDIS stays the same size. There is no "expansion". If you can get your head round that idea then maybe it will help. Your confusion is in insisting that the term "expand" must mean what you conceptualise when you hear the term. You can only seem to conceptualise something expanding within a larger realm - so whenever you hear the term, that is what you imagine. But with regard the universe, this concept appears valid from our internal viewpoint, but can not be said to be valid from an "external" perspective. Yet the term "expand" is used because there is no other term that even gets close to describing what is actually happening. Some even suggest that it is only 3 or 4 of our dimensions that expand, and that in the higher-order realm we remain a point of no more than planck-length, and all the 10, 11 or more dimensions are packed tightly within it, even though from an internal perspective we see what we term "expansion". What you read with regard these theories is not "science" - but the popularised interpretations of scientific studies, dumbed down for the mass media. You are criticising the language being used yet you do so because you are unable to conceptualise what is going on from that language. But the it is the use of the popular language that is to blame, not the underlying theories / ideas / concepts. If you really want to understand, go and read the papers on it. Understand their theories from the source. But understand also that scientific use of words can be different to layman's usage. Correct: science does not nor can not work with 100% proof. It works with statistical accuracy based on the current observations. To even raise that point suggests you really have little understanding of the concept of science. Do you think a vacuum is "nothingness"?