Open challenge to atheistic science

A very brief synopsis would clarify my work to all members & justify the relevance of my work to philosophy & theology. Aristotle considered space as finite & absolute, time as absolute and matter as absolute accordingly thereby God had no power on space, time & matter but he defined God with the power as Prime Mover of everything (matter) & an uncaused cause. Newton through his laws held that matter moves in nature not because of God but because of inherent nature of matter by which matter attracts other matter.Coming to how Newton's Laws are wrong? From the time of Aristotle space was considered as finite & absolute till 1905. Thus at the time Newton also same perspective of space was held. Now finite space means the universe has boundaries and according to Law of Gravitation the stars/galaxies on the periphery of the universe will be attracted towards the central universe and according to 2nd Law of Motion these peripheral stars/galaxies will accelerate towards the centre of the universe finally to collapse there. Thus finite space (the nature of space known at the time of Newton) and Law of Gravitation are contradictory. Newton assumed sun at rest but under Newton's Laws the rest condition of any celestrial object is just not possible. Having rejected the Descartes's aether and assumed the space as vacuum; in the 1st Law of Motion he states that objects with uniform (linear) motion faces absolutely no resistance but under second Law of Motion Newton states that objects pose resistance to the change in motion which he represented by inertia or mass. He assigns no physical reason to this resistance to the change in motion and it is here the philosophy/rationality was sacrificed on mathematics. Now even today physicists do not know what is mass & where it is in the particles. Representation of planetary motion of solar system by Newton Laws mathematically was the only criteria for adopting the Newton's Laws; though his Laws were irrational, incorrect & untenable; was the greatest scientific error in the history of science. This Newton did to reject the existence of aether which was scientifically introduced by Descartes. Newton by introducing irrational & incorrect laws closed the doors of investigation into the existence of God especially by rejecting the existence of aether which together with nature of light contained the secrets of reality. Later this was very well known that Newton laws cannot be correct as explained by Mach & others; whatever corrections were required those corrections Einstein introduced with the help very confusing fallacie (described in detail in my articles). Now a paradigm of physics was defined by Einstein under which God just cannot exist. Four constituents of the universe were reduced to two by Einstein namely space-time concept and matter & energy transmutability where space is emergent, matter is emergent and time is interconnected with space. Philosophically for any existence including God there are two basic requirements namely space & substance. Without discussing the substance; by the emergent space is meant that space came into existence at a point in time as such there is no possiblity that eternal God could have existed before the space came into existence i.e. 13.7 billion years ago or thereafter. Both of them; Newton & Einstein; had rejected aether before introducing their laws & theories. Whereas aether has been shown to be existing and containing the secrets of light & time. Once aether is accepted space is again finite & absolute, time is relative depending upon motion of the observer, and as humans perceive it, time is emergent and matter is not absolute but emergent. Now for emergence of matter & time the existence of God is a pre-condition and once we investigate the matter, aether & forces in nature there have to be substances which do not have electromagnetic properties & cannot be seen. Soul & God are substances without any electromagnetic properties so these substances cannot interact with light/radiation which are electromagnetic waves and as such we cannot physically see soul or God.   

It is the nature of science to constantly question itself. But this doesn't mean that new answers, just because they are new, are always right.

Good new answers are peer reviewed and only then do they become mainstream. None of the claims made by Mohammad Shafiq have successfully passed this test. Mixing science with atheism is nonsense. Atheism is the nonbelief in God. Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. The predictions of Einstein and all the other great sciences are still excellent. Relativity, for example, plays a key role in a multi-billion dollar growth industry centered around the Global Positioning System (GPS).

What is stated in my previous post is shown mathematically, theoretically & experimentally in the articles. Whatever the journal but the contents are verifiable. Open challenge is actually for information of all members of this forum so that they could inform all the physicists of the world to produce the rebuttal of the articles on the basis of which open challenge has been put forward in the relevent forum. It is simply improper to reject or question the open challenge on this discussion forum (This forum could be only rebuttal articles which are to be published in some peer-reviewed journal). However there could be discussion regarding the consequences of the paradigm shift in physics on theology, social, biological & political sciences.

I have justified every word of what I have stated through scientific research articles published in peer-reviewed journals and following is the list of articles & sites where these articles are available