Total stars in Universe is rougly equal to the total number (ever) of human cells.

[Anomalocaris]

Universe was not as small as a walnut.  The part of the universe we can presently observe was small as a walnut.  Beyond that walnut how much more of it there was we can not say.

You conclusion that “there could not be infinite energy” is based on what exactly?   other than an overconfident intuition founded upon neither familiarity with higher mathematics nor any significant experience with recent physics.

 So you dispute what science is still teaching and the last I heard we have now seen the light from the farthest reaches of the universe. Infinite energy would mean no little walnut universe, you know the one that prominent scientist claim to have existed.

GC

No, you misunderstand the conclusion science is drawing.  We have not seen the light from the furthest reaches of the universe that exists.  We’ve seen the light from the furthest reaches of the universe whose light had Time to reach us..

Do you understand the difference?

Light takes time to travel.

Multiple lines of evidence shows the Universe is approximately 13.5 billion years old.   The very earliest light in the universe only had 13.5 billion years to travel.   Therefore we can not see any light that originated from further away than the distance light can travel in 13.5 billion years.  

Understood?

The spherical part of space with we at the center and extending outwards in every direction by a distance equal to how far light can travel in 13.5 billion years is the part of the universe that we can observe.  That is called the observable universe.  We may have seen the furthest reach of the observable universe.   Do not confuse the entire observable universe with the entire universe.

We found that the universe does not become significantly different when you get closer to the edge of observable universe.   If the entire universe is the same size as the observable universe, or if the entire universe is only somewhat bigger than the observable universe, then the furtherest parts we can see would be much closer to true edge of the universe.   Any parts of the universe that is near to any true edge would experience forces and development significantly differently from our part.  So they should look different.   But to the furthest we can see, the universe does not look different.  So if the universe has an edge, it is no where close to the furthest reaches we can see.

Understood?

We don’t know exactly how far the universe extends beyond the furthest reach we can see.  We believe evidence point to it extend quite a long ways further.  For all we know, it could spatially go on forever.  

Understood?

Now the furtherest reaches we can see, although huge by human scale, is finite in size.  That part was much smaller, the size of Walnut, at a moment very close to the beginning.  

But the Walnut is just what will become the part of the universe that will be within the distance from us that light can cover in 13.5 billion years. The entire universe is much bigger than that part whose light could reach us within 13.5 billion years.

So when our observable universe was the size of a Walnut, the entire universe was much larger proportion, just as the entire universe now is much bigger than the on]bservable universe now.

If the entire universe is infinite in spatial extent now, it was probably infinite in spatial extent back then.

Understood?