you just argued that you were not aware of what I meant. So you continued to hold that position then you write this^^^^(the last paragraph)
It still wasn't clear which of the two interpretations you actually meant; now it looks like you mean the second. But you could see where people might get confused: you used two words that have literally nothing to do with what you mean (and incorrectly at that) in an attempt to express your meaning. In other words, what you meant is different than what you said. And that is liable to get awfully confusing to everybody else; we aren't clairvoyant you know.
If you learned a bit more English we wouldn't have to decipher your posts like this in the first place!
oh and it is not my intuition, no human can explain infinity, the concept is flawed.
Which concept is flawed? There isn't any one concept denoted by the word. It functions as a technical term in mathematics and has been defined there in a variety of ways (I'm sure avxo could explain it to both of us), meaning that the term in one of its senses is perfectly explainable. And I'm sure there's correspondence between the mathematical and physicist notions of infinity seeing that physics is mostly math-based.
The larger point is that the word is perfectly explainable because it is a term introduced into a theory, its meaning stipulated in advance. This is the notion used by physicists to explain certain properties of the universe. If there is a commonsense notion out there that doesn't make sense, then so much the worse for that notion; the physicist's explanations won't be affected.
Given the division of labor in societies, it is for the specialists in the field the term was introduced into to decide its veracity, not semi-literate roofers. Let's put some of that Christian humility on display and recognize this fact. (Actually, I don't think there is any such thing, but I could be wrong.)
