The Big Bang Theory

I get the Rabbi Mizcrachi argument but it has some flaws. It's based upon certain that are not proved.1º assumption: Einstein talked about a physical object. An object is basically a thing, but things can be physical or not. So there is a not proved assumption.2º assumption:"with physical tings time applies and there has to be a beginning and an end." No reasoning here. Also, I will ask Con how to end matter(????)3º assumption:"when you go to sleep, your spirit separates from your body". There's no reasoning showed to support this.As you can see, this argument is biased and invalid.Sorry for the Christian thing Con, I just read your profile, and there you say you are Christian. However, my argument applies to Jew, Christians and any other religion."Then how did they get pulled together in the first place if they repel each other?"Because before that energy wasn't there. Read my argument carefully please."So there was no space that it could go, there is many flaws with this:1.This would mean that the universe is expanding because space is being created to allow these objects to move, by this logic, the universe is expanding because space is still being created, hence the universe is not infinite as Steven Hawking claims.2.Energy cannot be "created" by nothing."1) The universe is indeed infinite, space isn't. 2)Is true that energy can't be created. As Lavoiser said "In nature nothing is created, nothing is lost, everything changes.”As Einstein showed, mass can become energy. That's what the famous E=mc2. Matter can become energy in that proportion (the amount of Energy(E) equals the amount of mass(m) times the square of the speed of light (c2)." "I'm not sure if this is totally right. However, gravity is still a weak force. If you compare gravity to the electromagnetic force you will see that the difference is of about 40 orders of magnitude. This means, if gravity is equal to 10 to the power of 18(trillions) of black holes the electromagnetic force is equal to 10 to the power of 58 black holes."From itself? How did it get together in the first place? "Your statement isn't even related to mine, so there's no much to say. "Nikola Tesla"s theories are all realistic and can be tested, Steven Hawking"s apply only on a chalk board"Again, bias and subjectivity. " you know my theory, it was G-d, and I can prove it."Con just throws this but never explains how can he prove so. Just another empty statement."Red shift of galaxies is wrong because you are assuming it started at a certain point, rather than a universe that was less expanded."The thing is this: there are two possible scenarios . 1) If you go back in time you will reach a singularity. 2) you will reach a static and smaller universe. Of this two the former has more sense, because the two would imply a universe that appeared fully formed from nothing."Microwave is wrong because it"s outer space, there"s going to be radiation."LOL. why there is going to be radiation? because you say so? Nop, radiation appears because of the hot state of the early universe. If the early universe was cold, there would not be a radiation source."Looking into the past makes no point whatsoever." I will teach some physics now. I know this is from school but is important to clear this out. Light travels at a certain speed. Light doesn't go directly into our eyes. In our daily experiences, the distances between the source and our eyes is short compared to the speed of light, so we cannot feel the difference, we feel like we are seeing the actual moment. On the other hand, when we look into the outer space, distances are big enough to delay light. For instance, if a star 1 light year from us explodes today, we will see the explosion a year from now. When we get to see the explosion, we will be looking into the past."Elements proportion is wrong because you cannot measure all of these elements."Yes we can! hahaha the old obama style hahaha.Jokes aside, we can measure elements using the light spectrum. This is all in the science books. Its from school.Conclusion:My arguments were not debunked so my point is still proved. Resolution confirmed.