Expansion of the universe If matter cannot be created nor destroyed, I would assume that the universe expands only to the point that energy is expressed from the objects inside it until it collapses onto itself, given as the universe cools the energy slows down the expansion and at the perfect ratio of "?", it collapses into itself. Or possibly, like an hour glass, it collapses into a different existence in a dual space.  I was hoping to use this in my proposal, but run it through you guys. Thoughts?
 A: As John Rennie points out in his comment, energy is NOT conserved in an expanding universe. This finding is much more modern than your beginning predicate that "matter cannot be created nor destroyed", which really began to be abandoned wholesale about the time of Einstein's famous 1905 special relativity paper "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper" (on the electrodynamics of moving bodies).
Nowadays our conception of laws like yours is that of energy content-momentum conservation: our grounds for believing in energy conservation are (1) the experimental, which come from experiments done here on Earth or very nearby and (2) the theoretical, which is that, through Noether's theorem, there is one conserved quantity for each "generator of a symmetry" for a system. Thus, for anything whose fundamental description doesn't shift with time (i.e. there is a "time sliding symmetry") there must be one conserved quantity for that  "symmetry". The modern theoretician's hunch is that this conserved quantity is what we now call energy. Likewise, over small enough distances, a system's description is not changed by shifting the co-ordinate axes. The conserved quantities corresponding to the three vector components of a co-ordinate shift are assumed to be the components of linear momentum.
These grounds for believing in energy conservation are all well and good over solar system sized objects over reasonable timescales (say a few hundred million years). 
However, on cosmological space and timescales, things are VERY different. General Relativity foretells that energy and momentum are conserved "locally" (the divergence of the so called "stress energy tensor" vanishes), but this idea does NOT generalise: solutions to the Einstein Field Equations do not a priori need to comply with energy-momentum conservation at all. Only special solutions do this: this is what John Rennie means by "having a timelike Killing vector field" - a Killing vector field is one that you can slide a geometric figure along without distorting its geometry. An expanding universe, such as we believe ours to be, does not have such a field.
So really your idea fails because its beginning predicate is no longer accepted in that form.
