Infinity scares people for the wrong reason.
It sounds too large.
But size is not a scientific objection. Coherence is. And once that standard is applied honestly, the case for an infinite universe can become stronger not because infinity is easy, but because the alternatives become harder to state without contradiction.
BFUT gains major strength here.
A finite universe invites boundary questions that quickly become unstable. If all space ends, what does that ending mean? If the boundary is spatial, then you have implied something beyond it. If it is not spatial, the word boundary becomes slippery. The concept starts dissolving the moment it is pressed.
This is why BFUT treats infinity as the cleaner option.
Not because infinity is emotionally comforting. It is not. But because it removes the need for a final edge that nobody can describe without quietly smuggling in a larger conceptual container. A truly finite totality of space sounds manageable until one asks what the limit actually is.
That is where the trouble begins.
Science should not prefer the smaller sounding idea merely because the human mind likes smaller things. It should prefer the more coherent idea. And if the finite picture cannot survive basic conceptual pressure while the infinite picture avoids those traps, then infinity deserves more respect than public cosmology often gives it.
BFUT understands this deeply.
The infinite universe is not the extravagant fantasy it is often portrayed to be.
The extravagant fantasy may be the claim that all space stops somewhere, and that this stopping point can be treated as meaningful without anyone being able to say what it really is.
Download the research paper: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19149786 (doi.org in Bing) Download the simulation code: https://zenodo.org/records/19124510 Watch the simulation work: https://vijayshankarsharma.com/