Center on three-dimensional finite bodies

This is the third part of our discussion on whether there can be three-dimensional bodies that have no center, and I feel, to my surprise, that we have reached some agreement and can therefore move forward. I will try to summarize your position in the most fair way possible and then elaborate on my argument (if I have described something incorrectly – correct me).
As far as I understand, you claim that such bodies could exist at least in principle in physical reality. We agreed that mathematics is separate from physics, and therefore even if it allows for the possibility of their existence, this is only a necessary but not sufficient condition. We still have no evidence that they actually exist. We also agreed that as long as we have not found a natural law (empirical law) that prohibits it, this possibility is in question, although here too it is only a necessary and not sufficient condition.
Let's move on: The question I raise is why in the world there are those who believe that such bodies are possible (like you). After all, it is not enough that we have overcome the mathematical hurdle and the empirical hurdle. There must be an external positive reason. What is it? You brought up the example of debt, but it seems that even there we agreed that debts are not physical entities (and cannot be) even though their mathematical description is completely valid and even though there is no "law of nature" that prevents their existence. And here, contrary to what you said about debt, with respect to the existence of finite three-dimensional bodies, you express a different position. why? Note that here you will not be able to use mathematics again as an argument, since even according to your method it is only a necessary condition. It is also difficult for me to see how you can base your position on physical considerations for the same reason.
In my opinion, the only way left for us to deal with the question can come from the a priori philosophical arena. On the contrary, you yourself used a philosophical "method" when you brought up the analogy between the universe and a balloon (assuming that the universe is of finite size, like other bodies). There I argued against you that even if the analogy is valid (in my opinion it is not) it proves the opposite of what you intended to show, namely that it shows that there must be a center for a finite three-dimensional body (and probably also for the universe). When you used that analogy, you spoke of the envelope of the balloon, which is only two-dimensional. In my opinion, this claim confuses the mathematical description of the envelope with a philosophical description. In mathematics, the ability to manipulate is much greater precisely because in such cases it does not apply to physical and metaphysical reality. You made illegitimate use of the great freedom that mathematics gives us and tried to rape it and its properties on real, physical and metaphysical reality. And more specifically: you claimed that the envelope of a balloon is a two-dimensional structure that stands on its own (separate, so to speak, from the internal volume of the balloon that the envelope surrounds). As mentioned, this is a valid and useful move as long as it is carried out using purely mathematical tools. However, you tried to apply, absent-mindedly, this description to real reality. By doing so, you manipulated yourself into the absurd position that in reality an envelope can exist that supposedly floats in the air without a center that is enveloped by it.