Forget Flat Earth Theory, now we have Flat Universe Theory!

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Yeah. Infinitely traversable =/= infinitely spatial. Just like you can hypothetically cut a circle with intersecting lines an infinite number of times while the spatial dimensions remain constant and finite.

Just because an object has the one set of finite properties does not mean that it necessarily has no infinite properties.

Right - I just don't consider 'transversibility' to be a property of space itself in the context of this arguement.

We already know such things exist via the Casimir effect, if you have two charged metal plates in a vacuum the number of potential vacuum fluctuations between the plates is infinite, but the number of potential vacuum fluctuations outside of the plates is greater (because of a larger spatial region thus more vacuum potential), this force of competing infinites creates a type of field that is stronger outside the plates and thus forces them together despite no material influence.

If you can think of an explanation for these observations that doesn't depend on competing sets of infinites then I would love to hear it, unfortunately it will still be the second best explanation as the Casimir effect was predicted as a result of this exact train of thought.

I'm familiar with the casmir effect, but I don't see how this is an exampe of competing infinities.
There is energy in a vacuum of space and that energy fluctuates over what I can only assume is an enormous number of variables - but not infinite.
This has to go with one of the theories as to how a total vacuum can produce a singularity that can explode into a universe such as ours. The idea is that if these fluctations were like a deck of cards then hitting the genesis button is like shuffling every moment of every day with a virtually endless amount of time available - one day you can shuffle and produce a perfectly ordered deck of cards. The chances of this happening is so rare that only the enormity of the expanse of time in the previous universe's vacuum can have a chance of spawning a new singularity that can itself spawn a big bang that produces a universe like ours.
This cannot be done with an infinately large deck of cards by the very nature of an infinity - even if time were also infinte. As such, I have my doubts as to whether the casmir effect, even if described under terms of infinities, is actually a result of competing energy infinities in the vacuum and not simply two competing finite energies.

Not true, we know that regions of infinite density likely exist through our robust models like relativity, we have infinites with the Casimir effect, we have the probability amplitudes of quantum events with self-interference leading to another infinite set of possible combinations... Infinites are suggested by observation quite frequently.

People seem to say things like that, but my understanding of physics in this regard is that physicists often use 'infinite' to also mean 'very large.'
For example, people say that the core of a black hole is infinate in density and there's a whole host of theories about what goes on in there because what we know about physics gets stretched either to the limits or beyond the limits of our understanding about these things. In essence, a black hole core is essentially infinate if not functionally infinate and I've seen instances of this apply in other areas as well.
Further, I don't think the core of any black hole has infinate density because that requires infinate mass crushed into a finite point when that is clearly impossible. There is also the issue that the core of a black hole under natural conditions is impossible to observe using current methods and this is one of those things that we don't really know a lot about.

Again see Alexander Vilenkin

I'll keep that name in mind during my next visit to the library this saturday.

And the idea that one set of infinites leads to every related phenomenon being infinite is plain false, take the sphere again, it's infinitely traversable but the room in which it is located isn't.

And I really don't see how you can dislike the idea of infinites, let alone use that as a reason to conclude that they aren't applicable. It's incredulity plain and simple.

... not necessarily all of them, but I don't view the sphere-infinately transversible example as interrelated properties because under the right conditions, any space can be infinately transversible.
The kind of thing I'm thinking of is like the old static universe arguement before the big bang started having evidence getting piled in its favor. One of the problems with it is that no matter which direction you went from any point, you would always - always - end at the surface of a star.
For this arguement, I've been assuming that we're talking about a finite region in an infinate vacuum - which is to say that the big bang and all the matter and energy that formed from it exists in a finite reigion of infinate space.
The problem I have with this is that the vacuum energy outside of this religion is infinate because the space around this region is infinate. There is also an issue with the random fluctuations because if a particular pattern or fluctuation can form a universe, then the property of this infinate fluctuation and infinate size of the universe means that the possibility of a universe forming anywhere at any time is always one. You see where I'm going?

This doesn't preclude the possibility that there are other variables at play that may limit this from happening in this manner - even if I'm utterly wrong, but I think the more likely scenario is that neither the fluctuations nor the void (if there is one) beyond our obsevation on earth are anything but finite in scope.

If you have infinite space then you necessarily have infinite traversability, but infinite space is not necessary, all you need is a closed loop of some kind.

Right - I don't disagree with that but I'm trying to limit the arguement to the transversible space and not the ability to transverse it. I don't see them as one being a property of the other. Like I don't see humans as a property of the earth itself, despite the interrelation.

Sure, I don't think the universe is curved, the flat universe idea makes more sense. I'm not sure that any conclusions at this point is justified.

Anyway, the space-probe experiment is really inconclusive, the curvature could be so tiny over that distance that it's immeasurable, that doesn't rule out curvature. It's like walking .05 of a centimetre and concluding the earth is flat.

I wouldn't rule that out - but I also wouldn't entirely rule out the results. Like all good scientific studies, it's merely a piece of a much larger and more interesting puzzle.