infinite space

At this forum? No.

This would be true except that we don't live in a classical universe. We live in a univers governed by the uncertainty principle, and under that condition, there comes a point where you can no longer discern a difference between a mass of 0 and a sufficiently small non-zero mass.So, no, you can't just keep shrinking, because you come to a point where you can't tell the difference between shrinking any further and disappearing. In our universe, if you divide by 2 long enough, you do get to zero - or so close as to be unable to tell the difference.There's a fundamental, bottom-end resolution to the universe, defined by uncertainty. At the upper end the universe is bounded by its volume and duration. If the universe had bounds at both ends, how can it be said to be infinite?

Well, I would assume that a universe of infinite size would contain infinite mass. Therefore I don't see how a universe of infinite mass could expand at all - it should immedately collapse. Could it even expand?There just seem to be too many contradictions for an infinite universe.

Ok, so you get infinity over infinity. That's one, isn't it?...so what does that mean? Is "one" enough? Well, why would the universe be infinite in every direction in space, but only infinite in one direction of time (the future)? That seems weird to me.Just to be sure, we're clear on the fact that there's no way to tell who's right here, right? There's no conclusive evidence for either an infinite or finite universe. So, does it really matter? Honestly the reason I believe in a finite universe is that it just seems, I dunno, simpler. Also I don't believe that infinity can physically exist, but that's just me, I suspect.

No, with quantum uncertainty, that's exactly what it means. Uncertainty isn't a failure on our part to build sensitive enough instruments. It's not an engineering problem. It's a fundamental constraint on matter in the universe. We know that because apparently even the universe can't keep track - the virtual particles (which we know exist) that flit in and out of existence are evidence of this. There is no part of me that is infinite. I am finite in total, and so are you.

I think it's simpler than that.All you have to do is realize that for each decending half-distance, you cover it in half the time, if you're moving at constant speed. Eventually you're stuck at an infinitely small distance from your destination, but you cover it instantaneously.But, if you feel quantum mechanics is a better solution for you, well, they're both right.

No, because we'd observe everything moving away from everything else - not just distant galaxies, ala Hubble, but all matter in the universe, like our component atoms, would appear to move away from everything else as they shrunk towards their centers.

Well, we know the duration of the universe isn't infinite in the past. If it were, the night sky would be infinitely bright from the light of an infinite number of stars, which would have had an infinite amount of time to suffuse the universe. Or so it's been explained to me.

Well, sure. And our universe could be a bubble in a vast cosmic bathtub. But there's no way to tell, is there? The minute we start talking about what's outside our boundaries of space, we've left the purview of science, and we can make up whatever we like.

Why would they do such a thing? And how would they know what direction to move?

Why would they accpet such a thing, when it's pretty clearly contradicted by the fact that we can explain all of the particles with string theory?

They're vibrating spatial membranes. They're not made of anything different than what empty space is made of.The problem with your ideas is that infinitely recursing matter doesn't explain why there's matter at all. String theory explains that empty space and matter are really different forms of the same thing.

Spacetime.(BTW when you're replying to a message, click over on the left where it says "*UBB Code is ON" and you can see all the codes. The one I use to make the blue boxes is the qs code.)

Maybe there's an infinite amount of it, but each string is only a finite amount of spacetime.

Well, if you want to substitute mystical mumbo-jumbo for rational inquiry about the universe, that's your perogative. I don't see any difference between that and creationism, personally.