You're asking about the traditional classical Big Bang cosmology, so I will answer in kind.
If something was infinitely small and infinitley dense and there was NOTHING ELSE besides "it", (not even SPACE).
Not "something" but *everything*, as in all of existence. This makes your "nothing else besides it" superfluous. There is no "nothingness", and nothing expands into it!
What you need to do (despite every layman explanation and Discovery Channel presentation) is stop picturing the Big Bang from "outside the Universe". There is no such thing at this level of understanding as "outside the Universe". This is what gives rise to these nonsense concepts such as explodig cosmic eggs expanding into "nothingness".
Infinitely small (and infinitely dense) simply means that if you take any two finitely separated points in the Universe today, no matter how far separated, and trace these points back in time towards the T=0 point, these points become infinitesimally close. Run time forwards again, and you can see these points expand away from each other. No explosion, no bang, no expanding into "nothingness", just expansion.
Just another little known point - if the Universe today is infinite, it has always been infinite including the initial singularity (ignoring the issue of the ill-definition of length scale at the singularity.)
1.) It would be a uniform point.
2.) The "explosion" would also be uniform.
In a classical world, yes, but we don't live in a classical world. Quantum fluctuations create non-uniformity, and post-inflation, these translate into variations in density that in turn give rise to the clumpiness that leads to the large scale structure of the Universe - clusters, galaxies, and stars.
When scientists saw starlight being refracted around a massive object like our sun to confirm Einstien's GR Theory that "Space" itself is being bent; It leads to "fantastic theories" that if an object is small enough and massive enough it could so distort the supposed Space Time Continum that it would produce a never seen object like a "Black Hole".
IE; The "Big Bang" and "Black Holes" seem less and less "Elegant" to me. What I'm really saying is that it's time to pull out Occam's razor.
The Big Bang and Black Holes are predictions of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. You may well decide that if General Relativity should have the nerve to suggest such inelegant concepts then it should be abandoned; that is your prerogative. But as GR remains the second most successfully tested theory known to man, don't expect us cosmologists to race to your side in agreement...
Talking of most successfully tested theories known to man, the most successful is based upon non-abelian (Yang Mills) gauge theory (which in turn is based upon Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics) and is what gives rise to your "ridiculous" "force carrier gluon theories".
If you happen to be a betting man, I would suggest keeping your wagers on the small side.
Here is another quote from LaViolette's book "Genesis of the Cosmos," (he says it better than me), "Big Bang cosmologists conceive the Universe to be contained within a finite sphere, an expanding bubble of space-time that has attained a radius of some 14 Billion light-years. They claim that nothing lies beyond this bubble of physical manifestation, no existence of any kind. Just as theologians did in medieval times, today's cosmologists have confined the heavens within an Aristotelian "crystalline sphere".
This is a major problem for LaViolette. From the errors in this passage, he clearly has very little understanding of standard Big Bang comsology. How can anyone possibly trust his ideas, no matter how "new and interesting", when he is either unable or unwilling to learn the very subject he is claiming to be revolutionising.
No matter what measure of space-time is taken, the Universe most certainly does not have a radius of anything anywhere near so small as 14bn lyrs. In fact, it is still quite possible from observation that the Universe is infinite in extent.
Furthermore, no qualified cosmologist will claim that "nothing lies beyond" the Universe, for in the classic Big Bang comsology, there is no such concept as "beyond the Universe". Even if finite in size, the Universe has no edge, no place from which to consider a "beyond". Such naive thinking comes from layman "knowledge", not any form of understanding of General Relativity and relativistic cosmology.
And everyone who takes science seriously as a search for truth and not as a religion or a means to tenure or to avoid ostracism by pygmies in a herd knows it.
Again, criticisms need to come from a position of knowledge, not ignorance. There are those that have seriously questioned the Big Bang cosmology: Halton Arp, Fred Hoyle, Geoffrey Burbidge, amongst a few others. They have been shown to be incorrect, but at least they are (were) scientists who certainly understand what they are criticising. Sadly, the same cannot be said for LaViolette.
Furthermore, you do realise that many in the field of cosmology are looking beyond the classic Big Bang comsology, for something that replaces it - ideas such as the Ekpyrotic Universe, brane collisions, the no-boundary proposal, etc. These do away with the Big Bang, whilst attempting to match observations. How do the researchers behind these ideas square with your insulting and ignorant accusations of pygmies and herd mentalities?