No, it isn't, because it would require an infinite amount of time for it to become infinite, no matter how fast any given part of it expands (probably at more or less the same rate everywhere, namely about 70 km/sec/Mpc at the moment, give or take 1 or 2 km/sec/Mpc, depending on which of the two apparently precise but completely different "best" estimates are.

Btw, most cosmologists seem to favor "big rip" expansion, in which the rate of expansion increases exponentially over time (it has been slowly increasing for the last 6 or so billion years). I think that as predicted (but not realized) by Einstein, any expansion is a result of the battle between gravity (provided by the mass of the Universe) and empty space (increasingly provided by the expansion of the Universe). Early on there was a lot of mass and not much space, so the initial expansion rapidly decreased; but the amount of mass appears to be constant, whereas the amount of empty space is continually increasing because of the expansion. As a result, by 6 billion years ago empty space began to win the battle, and nowadays, with the maximum mass of the Universe at only about 25 to 27% of the "critical" mass require to balance the amount of empty space, the rate of expansion is probably close to its maximum value. So I expect that over the aeons the rate of expansion will increase, but if I could be around to see the result, I would be very surprised if it ever reaches 100 km/sec/Mpc, so if a cosmologist publishes a paper in which he/she tries to explain some problem with cosmological predictions vs cosmological observations, I treat it as useless nonsense comparable to asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and toss it.

Courtney Seligman, you said: "any expansion is a result of the battle between gravity (provided by the mass of the Universe) and empty space (increasingly provided by the expansion of the Universe)."

How could empty space act with gravity? If u mean cosmic quantum vacuum, it is not pure vacuum. There you have some quanta of energy. And even if u mean cosmic quantum vacuum, how can it be potent enough to act and overpower gravity at some time? It has only meagre energy content therein, even if it may be supposed to have covered a much greater space than gravitation. Now, how to assume that gravitation cannot cover such a vast space simultaneously? If it has not, how can they interact and the one overpower the other in order to cause expansion or contraction?

This gives us more open possibilities compared to the finite version of the universe.

The fact is...the universe has several hundred billions of galaxies, which all did not appeared at one time.

Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted

Yes, because otherwise you would need the border of the universe, beyond which there is nothing. And a border can exist only between two things that do exist.

Incidentally, the word "universe" means nothing; it is a "handy word" signifying nothing, said Bertrand Russel. The same holds for "infinity"; it signifies nothing, because it does not have any value. It denotes exactly that: the lack of value.

I forgot to add the following to my answer of Nov 30:

One thing to keep in mind is that just as the Earth is round but appears flat because it is so large that it is difficult (or nearly impossible) to tell that it isn't "flat" from most places (of course on top of a mountain or in an airplane it's more obvious). For the same reason, the fact that the Universe is undoubtedly unimaginably large compared to the size of the Observable Universe means that the Observable Universe must appear to be essentially flat, regardless of its actual shape (which is almost certainly hyperbolic, but most likely not sufficiently hyperbolic to ever have a "Big Rip"). The only shape it can't really have is "round", because that would require its mass to be greater than the critical mass, which was shown to be impossible nearly 30 years ago.

Dear Dr. Nandan Bhandari

Early medieval Christian writers in the early Middle Ages felt little urge to assume flatness of the Earth.....

Cf.

https://twitter.com/EarthisRound112/status/1599884611525365760

A further piece to the "finiteness" of the Universe.

The universe can be represented as an expanding 4-dimensional pseudo-hypersphere. It is finite and the equator is the cosmic horizon.

Yes you can

The Universe is a three dimension as we observe, yet expanding due to its biologically existence.

True, we cannot see the edges of the universe. But for this reason it need not be infinite in content.

If there is an internal gravitational reason that makes the loss of energy at the fringes due to expansion, then we will have to say that EITHER our big bang universe will go on expanding eternally and become rarefied (in which case it could already have been so if the universe had no origin), OR it will oscillate between expansion and contraction. Even in this case, energy will be lost at the fringes. That is, the big bang universe cannot go on eternally. It will evaporate all its content.

Now the question is: Why is it that this big bang universe did not conclude earlier by being fully evaporated, if it was not created at all? Hence, some sort of creation of this universe should have been the case.

But why only this one universe? If this one was the result of instant or continuous creation, then there should be other, infinite number of, universes too -- because, the Source should not be this same universe or other universes. Other universes or this universe cannot create itself. In this case of eternal, continuous creation from a Source, we must say that the universe is infinite in content, that is, has an infinite number of universes.

I do not insist that this is the case, I presented one reasoning. I have elaborated this in more than 600 pages in my book: Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 2018, Berlin.

I have published a short version of it in about 100 pages, giving logical reasonings simplified: Essential Cosmology and Philosophy for All, KDP Amazon, 2022. This book is available as Kindle and Printed, for 4 Euro.

I suggest these books because I cannot write more than a page or two here in RG....

We cannot see the edge of the universe (cosmic horizon) because the runtime of a receding object is calculated by a diverging integral.

``Infinite'' means that whatever the physics is locally (a few hundred thousand Mpc), it is the same beyond our measures. IMO nothing we observe is infinite. Everything, every body has a limit, a boundary. So, the universe should also have a boundary. Then there is the measurement that the universe appears Euclidian (flat). So, some models find comfort in the idea of an infinite universe. IMO this is just because the models have many fallacies which manifest as ad hoc or unexplained observations.

So, a better model to explain these ad hoc or unexplained observations would be to start by requiring the universe to be limited. Therefore, the model must have some mechanism to provide this limit. The analogy in classical scale physics is to have a thermodynamic sink in addition to a Source.

Such is a model is:

Scalar Theory of Everything (STOE) unites the big, the small, and the four forces (GUT) by extending Newton's model

http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=2414

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YlJGdTvuTU

Infinite is relative,,,infinite does not have inside/outside...

https://www.academia.edu/39293599/Quantum_Intelligent_Space

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi-3qzj_pL8AhXygf0HHaAbAhgQFnoECBoQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftheconversation.com%2Fis-space-infinite-we-asked-5-experts-165742&usg=AOvVaw2MnKu0ruuTkhKGdD1MBtFz

Universe remain under our existence so long as we have a life within us . With this we are aware that our mind never get tired & it offers every human beings to have life within which he may become worthy & fruitful for universal ..

This is my personal opinion

This is not a matter of physics, but of elementary logics, which most people "do not practice" ... For an X to be finite, it must have a boundary; a boundary separates something from something else. If the universe means "everything that exists", then it cannot have a boundary, because there cannot exist anything on the other side of the boundary. The word "universe" is a handy word, which signifies nothing (has no clear meaning), like "free will", "flow of time", and many other popular handy concepts.

Our universe is not infinite. Our universe is only YIN component from Yin Yang concept. The darkness is the dominance. The lightness is only a small part of Yin. The other one outside universe is called "Heaven" (in my opinion). It is the YANG component according Yin Yang concept. The dominance in "Heaven" or YANG is the brightness (not the darkness).

There's a limit to how much of the universe we can see. The observable universe is finite in that it hasn't existed forever. It extends 46 billion light years in every direction from us. (While our universe is 13.8 billion years old, the observable universe reaches further since the universe is expanding)

There is a limit to what we can see out here

Can there be indirect reasons to determine whether the universe is in fact finite-content or infinite-content?