Joy, I plead guilty to not understanding your model. I have told you that for quite a while now. I have read your book and all your papers, but I do not see physics the way that you do. While I am not an expert on FLRW models, some of the other essayists seem to be and seem to, if not dismiss them, at least downplay them. Tom quoted Einstein, "All physics is local" and that is what I tend to focus on as all discussions of global topology or global wave function or global anything seem to exceed my imagination, or a least my ability to grasp the reality enough to take it seriously as other than a mathematical exercise. Probably my failing. The fact that I do not understand your model physically is not an insult to you and has never been intended to insult you. I have actually invested a lot of time and effort trying to understand your model. I wish people would do the same for my model. One option of course is to say nothing at all about your model, but you may recall that on your Disproof blogs I often served the purpose of bringing the discussion back from endless haggling over whether or not a sign error exists to questions of a more fundamental nature. I recall that you thanked me at least once for this. And you posted a pdf containing my defense of model in almost half a dozen places.
Joy I bear you nothing but good will. You said to Georgina that I am a friend who has supported your work. I hope that is true. The fact that I do not have the picture that you have, nor the picture that Tom has is not an attack on either you or Tom, it's just a simple fact. I am not against topology, in fact I now have, as part of my theory, a topological model of spin one-half particles that I searched for decades to understand. So I believe in topology in its place, I just don't understand yours. I was not trying to demean your ideas when I said that I now see why 'synchronized switching topology' is inappropriate, but your explanation of the choice of handedness occurring at every event seems unphysical to me. Of course now that you have explained (again?) that you are not trying to get rid a^b I also see that my remark about unwanted terms is also inappropriate. I'm glad you have an interpretation for those terms in your model. I have decided that I would like to be able to explain the a^b in my model. At the moment I have no such explanation. And you are correct that I separate the physical from the mathematical, which may account for much of this impasse.
Anyway, feel free to correct any misstatement on my part about your model. I do not make them to antagonize you.
Best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman