@
Mike Wrecka it's a logical fallacy. It's like saying "all men are human, therefore are humans are men." Space is nothing. Our association with space is planets, stars, celestial bodies, etc, but those are all examples of
things in space, not space itself. Space itself is the absence of matter, in the same way that cold itself is not a force, but an absence of heat.
So let's work under the assumption that space is infinite. The error is: since "nothing" (space) is infinite, the potential for things (matter) must also be infinite.
The problem with that thinking is, at this point, our understanding of the physical universe is that matter can't be created or destroyed, which means there is a finite amount of matter in the universe. To be sure, white holes are highly theoretical, so we're operating under things that have a legitimate amount of evidence. This notion could change, but as of now, conservation of matter is considered a scientific law.
To summarize, the fact that the absence of matter could potentially be infinite, it does not necessitate that matter to occupy that space is also infinite.
@
Zenland I didn't, but I took a number of physics classes in college and used to teach high school physical science (physics and chemistry), so I had to pass the content competency tests and all that as well. I'm no expert by any means, but I know a thing or two.