Creation

Time doesn't "travel", literally. It has no "direction", literally. The ones we've been talking about, the ones you referred to in Message 614, the one that Tanypteryx posted in Message 631 and you agreed in Message 634, "Yep that is the one." That just means that time can't be "rewound". What has happened can not un-happen.

I said, or tried to say, that what you were seeing as a direction is in fact a dimension, the fourth dimension, time. Granted, it is difficult to portray and/or visualize four dimensions in a two-dimensional drawing, which is why people are trying to explain it to you. But it seems that you're not only misunderstanding the drawing; you're trying to deny the science behind it. Ever hear of a clock? Ever see a clock go backwards?

You seem to have a problem reading. I said, "It is difficult to portray and/or visualize four dimensions in a two-dimensional drawing." Modulous' video explains it pretty well. No. It doesn't. It depicts the universe as a sphere expanding at varying rates over time. The science behind the Big Bang. But you're not turning back time.

We should all remember how dopey we were in sixth grade?

The galaxies are wrinkles in the fabric of the universe. It's only the surface of the balloon that we're considering in the analogy. The surface of the balloon has no center.

Thoughts are not things. Thoughts are arrangements of things - chemicals and electrical signals in the brain. The chemicals didn't exist at t~0.

Yes, it is hard to visualize. The balloon is a 2D area expanding with time whereas the universe is a 3D volume expanding with time. The universe has three spatial dimensions plus the time dimension. The balloon (surface) has two spatial dimensions plus the time dimension.

Yes. The inside surface is not part of the analogy. Neither is the air inside the balloon. Neither is the Volkswagen passing by in the street. Yes.Think of the balloon as a Klein bottle if you like. There is only one surface in the analogy. The whole point of an analogy is to focus on the important points. When you call Jesus the Lamb of God you don't think about shearing Him or making Him into stew, do you? You can misunderstand anything if you try hard enough.

Your questions was "as the outside surface of the balloon". In the analogy, galaxies are "wrinkles" on the outside surface of the balloon, represented by dots. In the analogy, there is no "inside surface". The outside surface of the balloon represents ALL of the universe. No they are not. The outside surface of the balloon represents ALL of the universe. No. The outside of the balloon is a surface. The balloon is not the universe. It only represents the universe. Do you understand the difference between a picture and the thing it represents? Yes. And you didn't mention Jesus' wool or His meat, did you? Why not? because they are not part of the analogy. Similarly, the inside of the balloon is not part of the analogy. If you cherry-pick your answers, you can find one you like. Ask another astronomer such as this one, if you're at all honest about understanding.

No analogy is a perfect representation of reality. We use analogies to explain isolated aspects of reality.A hammer is also useless if you don't know how to use it. You almost have an inkling. The balloon is a good analogy because it's surface has no boundaries, just like the universe has no boundaries. Speak for yourself. I and millions of other people can imagine the surface of the balloon as it represents the universe. Don't project your own lack of imagination and/or understanding on everybody else. Wrong again. The picture is a 2D representation of a 3D object. Again, we are only looking at the surface of the balloon - and we are not specifying that it is a spherical balloon. The surface of the balloon in 2D represents the universe in 3D, just like the picture in 2D represents the shark in 3D. There's no such thing as a human lamb. Jesus was analogous to a lamb only as a sacrifice. We ignore all of the other aspects of a lamb just like we ignore all of the other aspects of the balloon. Use the "Find" function on your browser.

Those of us who accept science can't be expected to remember every detail of every science-denier's denial.

The surface of the balloon has no boundaries. You can draw a continuous line in any direction on the surface of the balloon for thousands of miles and never cross a boundary. A picture does not have depth. So you understand that when we use a lamb to represent Jesus, we're not talking about wool. Now try to understand that when we use a balloon to represent the universe, we're not talking about air. The site policy is to cite a reference, which I did. I am not required to spoon-feed the material to you.

That's the thickness of the paper, not the depth of the picture. The picture has no depth. Nope. That isn't part of the analogy at all. I haven't said anything about the "outside of the universe". The outside of the balloon represents the whole universe. The surface of the balloon has no boundaries and the universe has no boundaries. In Message 737 you made a claim that an unnamed astronomer doesn't like the balloon analogy. I gave you a link to an astronomer who does like the balloon analogy. You're in no position to be holding up the forum rules to me. At the very least, you need to provide a link to your astronomer before you get holier-than-me.

That excuse only works if the "Great Architect" has His own mathematics that's completely different from ours.

So you're not here to try to understand?