"Since we know that infinite densities cannot actually happen in the universe"
"Since we know that infinite densities cannot actually happen in the universe"
Unless the sphere were infinitely far away, only the center point would be in balance, and everything else would be immediately sucked to the edge of the sphere. If the sphere's radius was infinite, that might explain the expansion of the universe itself, but not the presence of infinite density within the universe itself.
This is false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergence_theorem
An infinitely dense object would shred anything it touches by its infinitely high tidal force, but there's only a limited amount of material it can touch within a given time and the Universe is not infinitely old.
Okay, to be precise something like that can't have existed in the observable universe (at the time we observe), but could exist in a distant bubble that's expanding at the speed of light.
You don't know that. Claiming that there is a start to the universe is an absurd, religious ex nihilo argument.
Also, density is mass divided by volume. You have two variables to play with.
But all of this detracts from the notion that infinity and singularity may have no physical analog. They're mathematical constructs.
These questions aren't answerable at the moment. It's all just speculation.
THIS. That I've seen, the [astro]physicists are confident that there are no actual physical infinities nor singularities. With the public, they'll use those terms for situations "approaching" infinities and singularities. But in private, they're busy using all sorts of clever mathematics and calculations and arguments to avoid having any infinity or singularity occur, even on paper.
A very basic example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_delta_function#Motivatio...
>It could be that relativity and the physics around black holes, the big bang, etc. are wrong.
Of course, that's almost certain