Shortest distance you can travel?

[mishrashubham]

so grammatical errors aside, u r saying...

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=414380

In the interest of conveying ideas as clearly as possible, posts are required to show reasonable attention to written English communication standards. This includes the use of proper grammatical structure, punctuation, capitalization, and spelling. SMS messaging shorthand, such as using "u" for "you", is not acceptable.

 

[JaredJames]

so grammatical errors aside, u r saying that smaller distances do exist but we can't see on a scale smaller than Plancks?

I don't see why distance can't be zero - but we have a limit for what we can measure.

You said:

there is a limit on how far we can see into space so y don't we assume the same in relation to how small something is?

We do. The limit on how small we can measure is the Planck length.

Note, our ability to see a certain distance does not limit the maximum size something can be, only what we can measure. The inverse with 'small' is exactly the same.

and its more redundant than contradictory.

You are either infinitely big or you have a limited size. The limit you keep referring to is purely our ability to measure (or see that far). It has nothing to do with the size of the universe.

not being able to put a definite size on the universe means its infinite.

I can't put a definite size on my car, that doesn't mean it's infinite. Again, the inability to measure does not imply an infinite size.

a shorter version would be" if space is infinitely large y can't it also be infinitely small."

No, you can only get to zero in size. That is as small as something can be (well there abouts) so unlike space which could go on infinitely, you could only tend to zero with size.

 

[physiqueper4]

since the universe is continum, then maybe no limit.
If it is descret it may be h (planck cst)
I say maybe