Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Once again we run into the equivocal nature of infinity. Presumably we are dealing with a mathematical infinity, or that kind of pseudo infinity for which the surface of a sphere is often used as an illustration.

'We' are not dealing with a mathematical infinity.

I agree with Einstein that as far as mathematical propositions are certain, they do not refer to reality.

An infinite universe has no boundaries - no shape.

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
This 2D surface grows as the radius of the higher dimensional sphere increases, so there is only the first part of the problem to deal with: the ex nihilo creation of matter. Solve that, and increasing energy will follow – E=mc^2.

And until somebody solves that particular problem it is a work of pure fiction to imply that the universe is expanding as the result of the ex nihilo creation of a greater than infinite force of energy.

On the basis of the claim that the galaxies are all receding from each other and the fact that this would require an increasing, greater than infinite, force of energy...expanding universe proponents are implying that this marvel of creation already exists - has already been solved - ergo the first law of thermodynamics should be scrapped or at least amended.

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
If the infinity is mathematical, there is no problem with the increasing energy being greater than it, because, as Cantor showed, there is an infinite range of “sizes” of infinity.

The infinity to which I refer is not mathematical however the idea that "If the infinity is mathematical, there is no problem with the increasing energy being greater than it." complies with Einstein's comment regarding the questionable veracity of self-consistent ('certain') mathematical propositions.

It is a skillful sleight of hand that allows one of the so-called proofs of a theory to contradict a primary law of physics namely that energy cannot be created or to be able to show that "...there is no problem with the increasing energy being greater than..." an infinite universe.

The very basis of the 'big bang' theory - galactic redshift - as well as the increasing redshift of the more distant galaxies can be much more easily explained (on an Occam's razor basis) in accordance with a universe of infinite time and space as can other of the so-called 'proofs' of that theory but 'simple' explanations do not impress the general public nor do they sell books so Occam's razor as well as Einstein's appeal to keep things as simple as possible are conveniently ignored by physicists.