Of course, the expansion of the universe you mentioned is based on potentially faulty redshift=recessional velocity=distance relationship that even Hubble wasn't completely convinced of.

And Halton Arp has all but proven qualitatively and quantitatively that at least SOME PORTION of redshifted objects (quasars) are redshifted INTRINSICALLY as ejected objects (ejected often in pairs across the rotational axis of lower redshift parent objects), and step down in redshift as they mature in very specific quantized increments, and are NOT redshifted by recessional velocity. If that's the case for even a portion of the universe, it has implications for the entire universe, and our understanding of it.

Sorry, but just because recessional velocity is the currently accepted theory does not mean that it has been proven that in EVERY CASE redshift = velocity = distance.

Anyway, just figured I'd throw that out there. And I'm not especially a supporter of a "finite universe," but that's just my personal opinion. Because that would imply some kind of boundary beyond which lies, what? Nothing? An external singularity beyond which we know and CAN KNOW nothing whatesoever. If we can know nothing about it, what's the point. Why don't we all go home and get real jobs? *wink*