[George Dishman wrote]
In the balloon analogy, it is the (2D)
rubber that represents our (3D) space.
[EL]
I was under the impression that balloons have centres.

The 3D volume of the sphere has a centre.
The 2D surface does not.
[EL]
Are you in any way conveying the nincompoop about a spherical shell 2D
surface (rubber of a balloon) that has no 3D sphere being contained
inside that surface! Well, there is a way out called "Hyperbola", but
believe me when I tell you that every mass MUST have a virtual centre,
which is not a virtual geometric coordinate.
The Big Bangers failed to realise that the cross section of the
universe must be hyperbolic to explain all their contradictions that
they did not explain. Einstein did know it but he either had not the
time or was just reluctant to argue with imbeciles shoving CMBR
empirical data in his face, so he gave up.


Where is the centre of the Balloon Universe?

13.7 billion years in the past ;-)
[EL]
Are you now confusing the where with the when, shame on all those
Minkowski charts you drew. ;-)
I do know that you are just being clever to avoid admitting that there
is no answer to such a question.
Not because the universe is a 2D surface that as no volume but because
the universe is bounded and infinite rather than finite and unbounded.
Topologically speaking, only infinity can have a centre anywhere, but
where is that brave- heart who can stand tall and say that Einstein was
wrong on things and very correct on other things?


The rubber is homogenous but gets
thinner as the balloon swells.

I realise that BB purports that an "external"
expansion carries matter with it,

Nope, we discussed this at length many
months ago. The expansion is of the
three dimensions of space. Go back to
our lengthy thread with Sean.
[EL]
Like a virtual expansion or something!

No, I'm just trying to explain the conventional
model to Jim.
[EL]
Correct you are. :-)

The thread in question ran for
months and included hundreds of posts. You
would need to catch up a lot to follow this.
I'll try to find the subject line later if
you want to.
[EL]
No need for that, as I believe me to be the 1994 fire- starter. :-)


The Big Bang model is standing on two empirical readings:
The CMBR and the Red Shift.
This model in contrast to a steady state (in which Einstein first
believed) is only good enough if the steady state model was as clumsy
as was proposed back then.
If there was a steady state model that explains both of the Red Shift
and the CMBR, you should agree that it would be superior to a clumsy
non-causal trigger of a bang, that was big when size had no meaning at
all.

My only criteria for superiority are fit to
experimental data followed by Occam's Razor.
If you could develop a steady-state model that
gives accurate predictions for the shape of
the frequency spectrum, the intensity and the
angular power spectrum of the CMBR, I would be
most impressed. Check the WMAP results if you
aren't familiar with these tests.
[EL]
Thank you George, I am humbly doing my best.
I believe in my work as the meaning of my life.
I hardly care to impress anyone, and I certainly do not believe in
vanity affairs.
Naturally, I must verify the consistency of my model and explain the
readings accordingly.
The big difference between the classical steady state and mine is that
there is absolutely nothing steady in my model other than the topology,
which encapsulates the dynamic structure. That is how the topologically
peripheral galaxies are always slower than any inner ones, which
renders light emitted by the said outer ones Red Shifted as received by
any inner ones as the distance increases over time. The background
microwaves are significantly constant but insignificantly variant
because of the extreme relation between the micro-scale and the
macro-scale. No significant changes can be expected within a time
window of 100,000 years.


I do have such a model in my TKTODO that I shall publish back soon.
Stay tuned, my friend. :-)

I'll be here. So will many others.

George
[EL]
That is the spirit, but not to the extent of holding your breath.
You know, because of time dilation and all. :-)

EL