Arthur Edington's 1933 balloon analogy of big bang is the most confusing one. We should remember that nothing exists outside the balloon surface. The balloon surface is increasing because it is expanding but you cannot decrease the surface area, go back in time and then reach to a singularity. That provision is there in principle but do not do it, because, then the analogy breaks. The surface area of the balloon is not known, but it has to be infinite because curvature has found to be nill. The balloon expands but not the objects that make the balloon, means expand everything but not the galaxies, observations show no expansion of galaxies. So, balloon and even Big Bang lives in a highly protected physical scenario.
Several people in this forum tried to create a center of the universe, those are not scientific nonsense. "It is less well known that Lemaître found a more general class of solutions that describe a spherically symmetric expanding universe. These solutions, now known as Lemaître-Tolman-Bondi (LTB) models, describe possible forms for a universe that could have a centre. Since the FLWR models are actually a special limiting case of the LTB models, we have no sure way of knowing that the LTB models are not correct. The FLWR models may just be good approximations that work well within the limits of the observable universe but not beyond." Therefore, many of the proposals and comments for finding the center of the universe is not nonsense. These were the early days of Big Bang theory development.
Science is not blind it accepts all views, if you are aware about scientific literatures, wild ideas do come, very scientifically. Several proposals which I found have been discarded as "nonsense", are not that nonsense at all, scientists thought and those thought led to enormous protections.
