it's almost impossible to have a discussion about almost anything w/o taking the chance of 'stepping on toes' somewhere along the line [and by the time one gets to my age they've taken to wearing steel-toed boots].
I've probably read quite a bit of the same stuff you have on the subjects involved and don't have trouble understanding the physics i've read about BUT stuff like the 'big bang' and the physics involved ISN'T supported by ALL the observational evidence etc. [which is why i don't necessarily automatically 'buy' everything i'm fed].
Probably one of my 'problems' is that i'm well aware of how 'academia' works [and as a matter of fact, the author you mention has written (in my and not only my opinion) some of the most worthless drivel i've ever read]. I'm not going to necessarily [since i don't have this kind of necessity] take anyone's word on anything especially since science in general has a long history of being wrong about stuff.
And honestly- nothing i've ever been exposed to has ever provided an actual and what i would consider to be logical reason why the location in space of the 'big bang' [if there was one] can't be determined [that is, without lapsing into the realm of abstract conceptionalities that try to change the geometry of space into something unvisionable [remember- in mathematics there are liberties, like negative numbers, for one example, that don't actually exist in nature].
Understanding something in principle and successfully visualizing the implied result aren't exactly the same thing [and it's probably part of some human's nature to try to discount what can't be visualized]. I've been exposed, both in school and out in the world, to people much smarter than i am that are just as unreceptive to some of this scientific 'dogma', so i happen to know i'm not all alone in this great big universe...