Bah jumping into a conversation like this 3 pages in is hard. I feel an urgent need to answer all dangling questions from 3 pages 
Space and time are inextricably linked. They are two aspects of the same thing.
But, can you define the relationship of (and between) these things?
It's the same as love and hate. Up and down. In and out. Good and evil.
What is the relationship that time has to space, or that space has to time? Exactly? That each expands equally, or to some ratio of the other?
How does time affect space, or visa versa?
You say that time and space are but two aspects of the same thing. So, it is like a coin with two faces - but there are three aspects to the coin. There is the face, the back, and the medium connecting them.
Define 'Time'. And while you're at it - define 'Space' and the 'Connecting Medium' and how they relate to each other.
And where does Mass (and Matter) and Gravity come into play? Because they are inextricably linked as well.
Defining the relationship between time and space is not even remotely similar to the relationship between up and down, in and out, good and evil. Good and evil are concepts; up and down, in and out are all spatial directions.
However, answering the question, "what is the relationship between time and space" is extremely difficult. We actually do have a good understanding of the relationship, but how do you explain to a regular person what takes most people years of study and contemplation to fully understand? I could list the equations of special relativity, or more generally with the equations of general relativity. But I'd also have to include the equations of relativistic quantum mechanics, and quantum field theory. And then I'd have to explain them, which would require textbooks worth of exposition...
Suffice it to say that time and space are inextricably and fundamentally linked, and they are interchangible... fluid... in the sense that they warp and convert between each other at high speeds and under strong gravitational forces. Time literally proceeds slower on the surface of the Earth than it does out in orbit; and space is bent more and more the closer to Earth it is - and the rate at which time proceeds is directly connected to how bent space is - you can't affect one without affecting the other. Likewise, if you jump in a spaceship that goes 90% the speed of light, lengths will literally shrink, and time will proceed slower for you. These effects aren't just percieved, they are entirely real.
Kurenkino's explanation involving E=Mc^2 is not really right... It seems like an attempt to explain something in very simple terms that cannot be explained so simply. E=Mc^2 is however related to the relationship between time and space - the equation was derived from Einstein's original relativistic equations.
If light ( photon ) was without any mass, how can you explain that light is absorbed with gravitational monster like black hole, how light trajectory is curved by massive galaxy and create gravitational lens... the no mass is only a theoric thing, related to a photon not moving... try to find a photon who is not moving !!! Once movement stop, all mass is converted to energy and photon stop to exist...
Light/photons/Electromagnetic waves have no intrinsic/proper/rest mass. This means that an observer in the rest frame of a photon would measure a mass of zero. In other words, if you were moving in the exact same speed and direction as a beam of light, you would measure zero energy - the light wouldn't exist! Light cannot exist at rest. The reason light follows a curved trajectory around gravitational sources can be explained in several ways. One is that gravitiy bends space itself, and so light is bent with it. Another is that light is directly affected by gravitational forces because it has relativistic mass (/energy).
@Zyxpsilon - nothing has been proved by String Theory or M-Theory or whatever. Anything that has to invoke any of those theories is automatically pure speculation. Interesting, maybe, but nowhere even remotely close to proven or even supported.
By visible to the naked eye, do you mean of a brightness which is equivalent to something we could see with the naked eye? Since we cannot see gamma rays, it is either comparable in brightness or must have really been redshifted ALOT...
Gamma ray bursters produce light all over the electromagnetic spectrum including visible light. And they have indeed been visible to the naked eye. It just so happens they're one of the few phenomena that produce an enormous amount of gamma radiation as well, hence their name.
My understanding is that the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, which is essentially taken as proof of the occurance of the big bang, is the total known extent of the universe and there is no known source of any kind of radiation beyond this. Do you have any information that contradicts this?
No known source, no. But there is an extremely good chance that we should be able to see neutrinos through the CMB. The CMB is the first EM radiation that was emitted when the universe became transparent to photon radiation; but the universe became transparent to neutrino radiation long before that (neutrinos pass through thins has dense as the cores of stars with close to no resistence - light gets trapped in similar environments for millions of years).
What's not clear to me or well explained in the information about in cosmic microwave background radiation article or elsewhere any distinction between "observable" universe and how far the big bang has actually expanded. I don't quite see how we could know about anything beyond our observable horizon other than by gravitational effects on matter within the observable horizon but how one could determine the actual extent of the big bang is unclear to me.
We know nothing about what is beyond the observable universe, and we cannot know. People have predicted what might be beyond the observable horizon. It's not unreasonable to assume that it's just more of the same - in fact, it would be really bizarre if things were any different, but we really don't know. It's theorized that everything we see is just one big thermally coupled region, and that other regions of the universe that we can't see could be totally different in all sorts of ways. But in the end, we don't know, and probably can't know all that much about it. Plus like you mentioned it's possible that the universe wraps around itself and all sorts of weird funky things.
Proof in science comes in many forms and scientific consensus is one form but as you say that's the point it more becomes accepted theory as opposed to a proven law. Newton’s law of gravity is not invalidated by special relativity or any newer model. It simply becomes true in some limited sense. Things like F=ma are absolutely true if you can consider *all* the forces, but usually to make things manageable you make simplifying assumptions like "in the absence of friction" or "in a vacuum" or "at non relativistic speeds".
In any case when things are "proven" in science they are done so in a form that is transparent and repeatable by any other competent scientist in the field with suitable equipment. And it's the fact that these formulas and laws can be used to precisely calculate future behavior repeatably and "on demand" that constitutes "proof".
Yeah, it's called reductionism. It's the process of generalizing theories as more information is discovered/made available and theories are refined. The older theory isn't ditched, it's just relegated to the domain in which it's a good approximation. At first Newton's Laws were universally valid - then it was realized they're not, but they are still incredible approximations in the domain of 'normal' speeds and sizes, while general relativity and quantum mechanics now fill larger domains that contain Newton's Laws' domain. However, we're also now well aware that there are problems with both quantum mechanics and gravity, which means that they either need to be further refined, or we need another paradigm shift to shake things up again.
There is evidence that super massive Black Holes roam somewhere in the vast distances between here & nowhere... indicating that *some* mass can be located in hyper_giga_near infinitely condensed form.
Thus, the Universal missing weight physicians have been sooooo keen into finding if only to confirm the big-bang model
Extraordinarily unlikely. It can't account for the effects of what we call Dark Matter, because the effects we see don't even remotely resemble the effects of supermassive black holes (which, by the way, are only though to exist at the centers of galaxies, not just floating around aimlessly). They are also extraordinarily unlikely to account for what we call Dark Energy, because quite frankly, Dark Energy is thought to push things apart, not pull them together, and in a uniform way; none of these effects could be explained by some black holes scattered across the universe.
Also, white holes are purely theoretical and we've never seen anything at all that could be remotely construed as a white hole. It seems kind of odd that we'd see plenty of black holes - which are hard to see - and not a single white hole, which should be bright beacons of light.
About Einstein theory related to the lightspeed limit, i have my doubt... Why ? By example, in 2000, a speed 300 time the lightspeed was reached... but it don't make the Einstein theory wrong... no matter or no information ( have some doubt about it ) can go faster that light speed... energy seem to be able go faster that light ( laser beam is energy and it was 300 time faster that light )... maybe some other thing can go faster that lightspeed...
...
So, speed of light in space ( who is not a perfect vacuum ) will be lower that c ... Nothing say that we cannot be able to travel at a speed superior to the speed of light in space and inferior to C... by the way, in so case, i will be able to see the past...
Sorry to burst your bubble, but going faster than the speed of light in a medium is not going to make you go backwards in time. Theoretically, if you could go faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, you would travel backwards in time; but if you slow down light by sending it through, well, anything, and then proceed to go faster than it, you aren't going to do anything but produce a whole lot of czerenkov radiation (which is more or less an eletromagnetic wake).
Also, interesting factoid: interstellar space is not the closest thing to vacuum in the universe. No, it's also not intergalactic space. The closest known environment in the universe to a true vacuum is inside the beam tubes of the Large Hadron Collider. Man made! I find that cool.
Equation?
I've got me one of those (part of thesis while in University in the late 70's);
_ ~
G => T
...or Stable Gravity conditions are constantly equal or greater than variable Time - but never less.
Hard to explain in simplistic common terms but, let's just say that all matter must evolve (as in rationalized by reality) within a value always lower than infinity. Or else, BANG!
...Mind if I ask what field you did your thesis in? 
