No, the 2D flat universe is on the SURFACE of the balloon! In reality we have an extra dimension to deal with (3 space + 1 time) and things get more complex. Multiple universes are real theories put forward by respectable scientists, but I think it really just amounts to semantics about how you define the word 'universe'. For me, it means everything, and talk of others doesn't have any properly defined meaning.
All this regarding the contracting crunch theory which is not even considered viable anymore since the universe is expanding, as pointed out earlier in the thread. So cant even fathom why your using an untrue theory to support something else like the big bang creating something from absolute nothing, which takes away from the credibility of what your saying in the first place.
It's not been discredited, current observations just indicate otherwise. The physics is correct, and as I said a few times, the point is that it's easier to think of the universe crunching down to nothing than expanding from nothing. You can think of it as running time backwards to the big bang rather than being a proper big crunch, if you prefer. If you can convince yourself that the the universe can shrink down to nothing, then the entire idea of the big bang follows from that. And the thing is, it can shrink to nothing.
Now you're pulling together a pretty sketchy arguement again from sources you don't really understand. I'm not familiar with that research, but it contradicts an awful lot of other research (including theory and observations) saying that singularities are possible. Naked singularites not cloaked by an event horizon may not be (that's the cosmic censorship hypothesis). I'll have a read later, need to go to work soon, but I'm currently more inclined to believe he's either wrong or you've misinterpreted his work than that he's proved singularites don't and cannot exist. Oh, and you seem to be confusing 'dark matter' with 'dark energy', they're two different things with unfortunately similar names.
Just had a quick Google and it seems that indeed Shu's arguement's are themselves pretty fatally flawed, but I'll still have a proper look later.
Okay, now you're making a sensible point. The key idea here is that as space itself expands, the energy density of dark energy remains constant and has done ever since the big bang. The density of every other thing (matter, dark matter etc) has fallen and we now believe dark energy to be the dominant force in determining the universe's fate. The thing is, you're right - dark energy is inherent in the fabric of space, just like vacuum energy, and as space itself gets larger, for the density of dark energy to remain the same, the amount of it must be increasing. But it increases because space expands, it's a property of the space itself. Shrink the universe down to zero size, and if all the space goes, all the energy (of that type) goes too.* Dark energy is poorly understood, and we don't know what it is, just what it does. It's really a term in an equation rather than a physical thing, by our current understanding. Even the identification with energy is tenuous.
I'd also like to reiterate that I'm pretty sure quantum fluctuations can occur even from a zero-valued field, they just require the presence of the energy field rather than requiring the field to have any particular energy itself. As I said, I'm on shaky ground with the statement and I'll take it back if someone can convince me otherwise. The gauntlet is laid down.
* At zero size, you hit issues of infinite densities of just about everything, since any number (no matter how small) divided by zero gives infinity, but I think the point is valid that for dark energy density to remain constant right up until the big bang, it has to be created along with space itself. This doesn't necessarily apply to other types of energy, since truth be told 'dark energy' is just a catchy way of saying 'we don't know what this is'.
And just because I'm having fun now, I'd like to pose a slightly different question. You talk about how energy isn't nothing, and that seems to be central to your arguement against the big bang, but can you answer this for me (without Google or Wikipedia!) - what is energy?
