Einstein Called Into Question by New Paper

A new paper was published by the Indian Journal of Science and Technology that calls the foundations of Einsteinian relativity into question.  Interesting reading for those who understand theoretical physics.  Obviously I agree; the whole concept of bending space is ridiculous on its face.

Experimental & theoretical evidences of fallacy of space-time concept and actual state of existence of the physical universe, by Mohammad Shafiq Khan

Indian Journal of Science and Technology Issue No:3 Vol.5 March – 2012


The postulate of constancy of velocity of light irrespective of relative uniform motion of the source and the observer introduced by Albert Einstein in the article ‘On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies’ Albert Einstein (1905a) is absolutely consistent with the physical and experimental observations. The other postulate of ‘laws by which physical systems undergo change are not affected when referred to different inertial reference frames’ is in contradiction with all the derivations in the article. Since the change in any physical system; due to whatever reason; could be mainly in reference to the space and time of that physical system; whereas article derives that space and time of any physical system would be different when referred to different inertial reference frames. This article will establish theoretically as well as experimentally that the concept of length contraction in the direction of motion, as proposed by Lorentz & FitzGerald to explain Michelson–Morley experiment is fundamentally incorrect. Consequently the concept of exchangeability of mass and energy as proposed by Einstein in the article ‘Does the Inertial of the Body Depend upon its Energy Content’ Albert Einstein (1905b) fails conceptually, theoretically as well as experimentally. The theoretical and experimental evidences against the concept of contraction of space in the direction of motion leads to the failure of space–time concept and every theory and concept associated with it. The obvious conclusions are space is finite & absolute, time is relative & emergent, matter is emergent and radiation is the electromagnetic work capacity dissipated by the matter which propagates in the medium of ether as a wave motion. Consequent upon these experimental and theoretical evidences this unique state of existence of the physical universe emerges which has been partly described in the article ‘Foundation of Theory of Everything; Non-living Things & Living Things’ Mohammad Shafiq Khan (2010b) and is further discussed herein. This article discusses in detail the experimental evidences of the coordinate transformation between two coordinate systems in uniform motion derived in Mohammad Shafiq Khan (2010b); which in turn shows that Lorentz transformation which Einstein physically interpreted in the article Albert Einstein (1905a) is fundamentally incorrect. Consequently the physics which evolved in twentieth century is shown to be incorrect including the formulae and. The final conclusion is that space is finite & absolute and accordingly the Big Bang Theory is established to be baseless.

The author has issued peer review challenges to every scientist in the field asking them to prove him wrong.

For those who want a little more on this subject, check out what can be modeled with just simple standing waves:

Matter is made of waves – G. Lafrenière

  •                            OPEN CHALLENGE
    The article ‘On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies’ by Albert Einstein is based on trickeries is proved beyond any doubt whatsoever in the articles (1). ‘Experimental & Theoretical Evidences of Fallacy of Space-time Concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe’ published in the peer-reviewed journal namely Indian Journal of Science & Technology (March 2012 issue) available on http://www.indjst.org (2) ‘On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies By Albert Einstein is Based on Trickeries’ (Open letter to Professors, Teachers, Researchers and Students of Physics) published in peer-reviewed journal Elixir Online Journal (February 2012 issue) available on http://www.elixirjournal.org. The Voigt transformation was simply a mathematical possibility which was changed by Lorentz by introducing the Lorentz factor but the Lorentz factor is simply a manipulation. Thus nature and forces in nature were trivialized and made subservient to mathematics in the theories of relativity, Big Bang Theory, Space-time concept and in all physical sciences which are directly or indirectly based on the ‘On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies’. It is unfortunate for humanity that exposing these trickeries took more than one hundred years.
    I openly challenge all the professors, researchers & teachers of physics/philosophy of physics to come forward & show me where I am wrong or else they have to accept  that they are teaching incorrect physics based on ‘trickeries’.
    My challenge may not be treated as a publicity stunt but I sincerely wish that truth should prevail on this planet and am expecting identical response from all truth loving people/intellectuals. I do understand that it is hard for mainstream physicists to reconcile with the alternative philosophy; though actual and factual; as almost all the living physicists and researchers are borne, brought up and taught physics which is fundamentally incorrect. Their livelihood is based on the physics which has been adopted as the result of fraud, but these material interests should never be a stumbling block to acknowledge the reality, which to my understanding is the essence of scientific thinking and honest living for the betterment of entire human society.
    I have not an iota of doubt that sooner or later the truth will prevail, but it would be in the interest of humanity that ‘truth’ is accepted now so that humanity comes out of clutches of materialism which in itself is naked atheism.
    Mohammad Shafiq Khan,
                                        (M.Sc. Physics)
                                        (M.Sc. Forestry)

    • “nature and forces in nature were trivialized and made subservient to mathematics in the theories” this is an excellent quotes!

    • Phil Modelle

      Your “science” is obviously grounded in your religion. While I respect your beliefs, I have to say: That is a poor foundation for science. I looked up your article and it seems that it was only published in one journal. I would very much like to see the credentials of your “Peers” who reviewed your submission. I would also like to see your math which proves your theory.

    • Lee Whittaker

      You have messed up your coordinate systems. In the stationary coordinate system

      t_1 = t + x’ / (c – v)
      t_2 = t_1 + x’ / (c + v)

      You cannot say, however, that

      t_1 = t + x’ / c
      t_2 = t_1 + x’ / c

      Writing this misses the point of the calculation.

      The time coordinate in the moving frame is tau, so

      tau_1 = tau_0 + x’ / c
      tau_2 = tau_1 + x’ / c

      • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

        You should have referred to the title of the paper, page number & equation number to expect the answer to expect an answer. However we have to derive contraction of length before adopting the contracted length in the equations of time tau.

        • Lee Whittaker

          In your paper

          “Experimental & Theoretical Evidences of Fallacy of Space-time Concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe”

          on page 5 (sorry, the equation is not numbered), you have written

          t_1 = t + x’ / c
          t_2 = t + 2x’ / c

          This is wrong and leads to your conclusion of the “Equation of Trickery”. It is where your discrepancy with Einstein originates.

          • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

            Well! Using of c+v and c-v was what Einstein had done in his paper ‘On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies’ but when we apply the postulate of constancy of velocity of light (which he had plagiarized from Maxwell’s electromagnetic wave equation of light/radiation), which Einstein had introduced in this very paper, he should not used c+v and c-v. That is why I replaced x’/c-v and x’/c+v in equations (7) & (8) by x’/c.
            There is another trickery of Einstein which has been exposed and for that you need to read page 5 and half of the page 6. On page 6 you will see that even the sentences where Einstein had tricked have been identified.

          • Lee Whittaker

            I have read ‘On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies’ and he is perfectly correct to use c + v and c – v. In the stationary system, it comes from the fact that x’ and the origin in the moving frame are moving with velocity v. You cannot just replace x’ / (c – v) and x’ / (c + v) with x’ / c. This is not true in the stationary frame for the reason above. In the moving frame, the time coordinate is tau and the distance between the origin and x’ is greater than observed in the stationary frame. Einstein does not trick anybody. His conclusions naturally arise from his two postulates.

          • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

            In view of the postulate of constancy of velocity of light how on earth one could take the velocity of light as c+v and c-v, whether on stationary or moving reference frame. You are justifying the preposterous assumption of Einstein. Read first half of page 6 for more clarifications.

          • Lee Whittaker

            He is not taking the speed of light to be c + v and c – v. The speed of light is c. The distance that the light travels is further on the outward trip and shorter on the return trip. That is why the -v and +v is there.

            As the light travels from the origin to x’ in the stationary reference frame, x’ is moving in the same direction as the light with velocity v. Therefore, the light takes longer to get there at constant speed c. So, letting the time of emission be t = 0

            t_1 = x’ / (c – v)

            c – v is not the speed of light. The -v is there because in the stationary frame x’ is moving in the same direction as the light with speed v increasing the distance the light has to travel.

            After reflection, the light moves toward the origin of the moving frame. In the stationary frame this trip is shorter for the light as the origin in the moving frame is coming toward the light. Therefore, this trip takes less time for a constant speed of light.

            The return trip therefore takes time t_r, such that

            t_r = x’ / (c + v)

            where, again, the speed of light is the constant c and the v is now there because the origin in the moving frame is coming towards the light, reducing the time of the trip in the stationary frame.

          • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

            What are you trying to prove. For working out the time & distances you cannot use different velocities of light once the postulate of constancy of velocity of light is accepted; this is the actually the trick of Einstein which you are deliberately trying to ignore. The only possible alternative to Einstein’s perspective is existence of aether and relativity of time due to the interaction of the moving body & the aether. Aether has been shown to be existing in the published paper “Michelson-Morley Experiment: A Misconceived & Misinterpreted Experiment”. You could read it athttp://www.indjst.org/index.php/indjst/article/view/30182.

          • Lee Whittaker

            There is no difference of velocities used. You are misunderstanding the scenario. The light always travels at speed c. It’s just that the outward trip is further than the inward trip. Simple as that!

          • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

            Please ponder on what you have stated in your last comment with a cool mind. You will understand the trick. Well! OK not satisfied with my explanation; see how the same trick has been reflected mathematically at page no.6. There is another paper which could further clarify your misunderstanding which you could read at http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/%7B$cat_name%7D/View/3966.

          • Mohammad Shafiq Khan
          • Lee Whittaker

            My mind is very cool at the moment. I am afraid you have misunderstood the set up of the calculation. If by page 6, you mean the term dtau / dx’, this just arises from a Taylor expansion of the RHS of “the Equation of Trickery” in your paper.

            The term x’ = x – vt is the x-coordinate in the moving system expressed in terms of the stationary system.

          • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

            How could Taylor series be applied when x’ is a constant in the moving coordinate system; because x’ is always the same for all times in tau. These issues were raised by one Prof. Jeremy Dunning-Davies and he stands adequately replied. Refer http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/%7B$cat_name%7D/View/4021

          • Lee Whittaker

            OK, tau will be different at different points in the moving coordinate system for an observer in the stationary frame. In the moving coordinate system the coordinates are fixed and independent of time. For an observer in the stationary frame, the time on a clock at point (0, 0, 0, 0) in the moving frame will not be the same as the time on a clock at point (x’, 0, 0, 0) even though they are sychronized in the moving frame. Hence, the Taylor expansion. We are working from a stationary coordinate system here.

          • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

            You simply fail to understand that partial derivative dx’/d(tau) when value of x’ is constant in moving coordinate system with time tau is zero because x’ is not a function of tau that means that x’ is not a variable as a function of tau. Think it over with a cool mind. What you point out has been pointed out by tens of physicists but once they understood my version they all realized the tricks of Einstein. Taylor series would call into play when there is a variable involved but here no variable is involved with respect to time tau. Do not try to mix up x’ with time t of the stationary coordinate system; Einstein applied Taylor series for x’ as a function of time tau.

          • Lee Whittaker

            x’ is only not a function of tau in the moving coordinate system. We are in the stationary system. Einstein makes that explicitly clear as follows:

            “If we place x’=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k must have a system of values x’, y, z, independent of time. We first define tau as a function of x’, y, z, and t. To do this we have to express in equations that tau is nothing else than the summary of the data of clocks at rest in system k, which have been synchronized according to the rule given in ss1”

            -tau is a summary of clocks positions at rest and synchronized in the “moving frame”.

            Then, before the calculation of “the Equation of Trickery” he writes

            “applying the principle of the constancy of the
            velocity of light in the stationary system:—”

            – in the “stationary system”.

            Hence, we are working in the stationary system. The clocks are synchronized and independent of position in the moving system. tau only corresponds to proper time for a person in the moving system, not for us. For us tau is just a coordinate in the moving frame. For us in the stationary frame x’ is not independent of tau.

            In fact, in the stationary frame, for this set up

            tau(x’, 0, 0, t) = ( 1 / beta )*( t – v x’ beta^2 / c^2 )

            Therefore, partial

            d tau / d x’ = – v beta / c^2

            It’s well defined in the stationary frame.

          • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

            You are simply trying to fool yourself by misrepresenting everything as you are refusing to understand simple facts about the fallacies of 1905 paper of Einstein. You are saying things which Einstein never meant or intended. Finally I will refer you to an article which addresses your misconceptions at the link http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/%7B$cat_name%7D/View/4021

          • Lee Whittaker

            I have misrepresented nothing. I have read the reply in your link and it does not explain anything. In fact, it seems to confirm that you do not understand the situation. You seem incapable of grasping the idea that we measuring everything in the stationary frame. And I have pointed out the lines which Einstein wrote that state his intention. Even if (and this is not true) this was not Einstein’s intention, what I have said is still true and we would still have relativity. Again Einstein writes

            “applying the principle of the constancy of the
            velocity of light in the stationary system:—”

            You cannot keep telling me that I have misunderstood something without an argument as to why. And pointing me to links with no additional content does not constitute an argument.

            We are in a stationary frame. x’ and tau are coordinates a moving frame. The speed of light is constant. The rest follows from some pretty simple maths. You can even calculate the lorentz factor with even simpler examples than Einstein used. Without even looking at Einsteins derivation I arrived at the same “Equation of Trickery” simply using the constancy of the speed of light and a frame moving with constant velocity in the x direction.

          • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

            The simplest thing to understand is that dx’/dtau (treat d as partial derivative) is zero because at all times of tau x’ is at constant distance from origin of the moving coordinate system. You fail to understand this absurdity in Einstein’s paper.
            Besides Einstein has used c+v and c-v in his calculations but with respect to any body/observer/coordinate system associated with any body or observer we cannot take velocity of light as c+v & c-v in view of the constancy of velocity of light.
            You are simply beating about the bush.

          • Lee Whittaker

            Tau is not the time in the stationary frame. It is just a coordinate corresponding to some clock in the moving frame. In the stationary frame d tau / dx’ is not zero. In the moving frame it is zero. Does this not make sense to you? Two different frames of reference.

            The c + v used in the calculation…

            Imagine a car traveling at speed v away from me. It starts at position x.

            At time = 0 I set off in pursuit of the car at speed c.

            It takes me time = t_1 to catch the car. In that time the car has traveled a distance of vt_1 (it started at x) and I have traveled ct_1.


            x + vt_1 = ct_1

            x = ( c – v ) t_1

            t_1 = x / (c – v)

            I have only ever traveled at speed c. The car moved at speed v.

            If the car was traveling toward me

            x – vt_2 = ct_2

            x = ( c + v ) t_2

            t_2 = x / (c + v)

            Again I only traveled at speed c.

            In both cases my speed is c!

          • Lee Whittaker

            Here is a simple derivation of the Lorentz factor. Notice how the speed of light being constant is key to the derivation.

          • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

            This is completely against the Einstein’s derivation wherein t’= gamma (t-v/c^2 x). Again incorrect; let us forget the error in the derivation of gamma factor in your you-tube video.

          • Lee Whittaker

            Why forget it, it seems pretty crucial to me. This is not against the Lorentz transformation. It is a bit of an over simplification. The t’ and t in the video are not really the same the t’ and t in

            t’= gamma (t-v/c^2 x) ……….. (1)

            The t’ and t in the video are changes in time on clocks in the two frames as viewed by the stationary observer. The t’ and t in equation (1) are specific coordinates as viewed by the stationary observer. This seems to be a recurring mistake in your line of thinking. A clock stationary and synchronized in the moving frame would read t’= gamma (t-v/c^2 x), at coordinates x and t in the stationary frame.

            So lets call changes in time dt’ and dt

            Using equation (1)

            dt’ = gamma ( dt – ( v / c^2 ) dx ),

            where v is a velocity in the x direction. If dx is small, i.e. if y or z are large then this is

            dt’ = gamma dt

            which is identical to that in the video.

          • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

            How come we eliminate dx for being small then dt & dt’ are even smaller.

            You are oversimplifying everything. Think about dx’/dtau (treat d as partial derivative) is zero because at all times of tau x’ is at constant distance from origin of the moving coordinate system. Once this is taken into consideration Lorentz transformation can in no case be arrived at.

          • Lee Whittaker

            Imagine a string of clocks moving at speed v through point x in the stationary frame. The clocks are synchronized in the moving frame. Say at t = 0, t'(at x) = 0, then at t = t_1, t'(at x) = gamma t_1.

            Here dx = 0. i.e it is taken at a specific point in space.

          • Lee Whittaker

            And, as stated maybe three times above, d tau / dx’ is not zero in the stationary frame. The time tau is only the proper time in the moving frame. In the moving frame x’ is independent of time as you have said. In the stationary frame it is not independent of tau.

          • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

            You seem to be confused person. How could we consider dx’/dtau in stationary frame of reference when both x’ & tau are the coordinates in the moving frame of reference.You got to understand simple calculus. Write your e-mail address in your next comment I will send you what mathematical problems are in your statements.

          • Lee Whittaker

            I understand calculus. Its my job to.

            It is very easy to consider dx’ / dtau in the stationary frame as both x’ and tau are well defined in the stationary frame. Its just a simple coordinate transformation, in this case given by the Lorentz transformations.

            Assuming a moving frame to be moving at speed v in the positive x direction. Let’s ignore the y and z coordinates which do not play an important role here.

            In the MOVING frame, let event A at point (x’, tau) occurs simultaneously with event B at point (x’ + dx’, tau + dtau). In the Moving frame, as x’ is independent of tau, the simultaneity implies that dtau = 0, therefore, dtau / dx’ = 0 for all dx’.

            However, to a person in the stationary frame, events A and B are not simultaneous. Instead, event A is simultaneous with event C at point (x’ + dx’, tau + dtau’). This difference in how two events are deemed to be simultaneous in the two frames is captured by

            d tau / d x’ = – v beta / c^2


          • Lee Whittaker

            The coordinates Einstein uses for the moving frame are not x’ and tau. They are

            xi and tau.

            xi is independent of tau. Not x’.

          • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

            I fail to understand why you cannot see the blatant trickery of Einstein.
            In view of constancy of velocity of light irrespective of motion of the source & the observer which he had introduced how he could use c+v and c-v with respect to anything. This is another trickery. This absurdity leads to incorrect mathematical calculations which stands brought out in the article sent to you. Once we equate dx’/dtau to zero then equation of trickery reduces to
            1/2[ 1/(c+v) + 1/(c-v)]= 1/c-v; this is climax of absurdity as the equation is valid only when v=o.

          • Lee Whittaker

            I am sorry I have changed some of the above argument as I had confused difference between ticks with rate of change on a clock.

          • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

            What you say is denied by Einstein in his 1905 paper as I quote the very words of Einstein in his paper
            “If we place x’=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the
            system k must have a system of values x’, y, z,
            independent of time. We first define tau as a function of x’,
            y, z, and t.”
            If x‟, y, z are independent of time; he
            mischievously did not quote time tau in his first sentence; but in the next sentence he
            makes time tau as a function of x‟, y, z.
            This is your misconception and if you fail to understand this simple fact then you should seek help.

          • Lee Whittaker

            You have stated your misunderstanding of the situation quite clearly for all to see.

            “If we place x’=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the
            system k must have a system of values x’, y, z,
            independent of time. ”

            – key words… “a point at rest in the system k…. independent of time”

            A stationary observer is not at rest in k.

            OK. It doesn’t matter to me anyway. I was just using this argument to revise a little special relativity and I feel that I know more now than when I started so thank you.

          • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

            Key point is ‘independent of time’ which time? It is the time tau. Now if if x’ is independent of time tau then how come dx’/dtau could have any value because x’ is just not the function of tau. Where on the earth Taylor series could be used in respect of a constant.

          • Lee Whittaker

            x’ is Independent of time in system k.
            Not independent of tau in system K.

          • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

            You should have known in system k time is tau; hence x’ is independent of tau. Hence dx’/dtau is zero. This is as simple as that.

          • Lee Whittaker

            Yup. But not in K.

          • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

            Einstein’s Equation of Trickery ends up there in system k so we need not shift to system K at all.

          • Lee Whittaker

            It’s evaluated by considering the constancy of the speed of light in K.

            “applying the principle of the constancy of the
            velocity of light in the stationary system:—”

            The tau in the Equation of Trickery are just the clock (the clocks synchronized in k) readings at the events of emission, reflection and arrival.

          • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

            The whole point is that constancy of velocity of light has to valid in system K as well.

          • Lee Whittaker

            It is valid in k because tau_1 = 0.5*(tau_0 + tau_2).

            Just to be clear Einstein uses k as moving and K as stationary.

          • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

            Please refer my previous comment to see the absurdity of this equation once we equate dx’/dtau to zero. This yields v=0.

          • Lee Whittaker

            Of course it would. dx’ / dtau is only zero if v is zero! The two frames are the same then!

            I wrote this earlier

            partial d tau / dx’ = – beta v / c^2

            This agrees with that.

          • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

            That means violation of postulate of constancy of velocity of light which Einstein had introduced in his paper.

          • Lee Whittaker

            No it doesn’t.

            If v = 0, there is no moving frame. In the stationary frame (both frames in this case)

            t_1 = t + x / c
            t_2 = t_1 + x / c

            There is no ambiguity.

            In the general case

            The constancy of the speed of light is reflected in the condition

            tau_1 = 0.5*(tau_0 + tau_2)

            for the moving frame, and

            t_1 = x’ / (c – v)

            t_2 = t_1 + x’ / (c + v)

            for the stationary frame.

          • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

            When v=0 validity of theory of relativity and all Einsteins’s & your calculations automatically vanishes.

          • Lee Whittaker

            Pardon? Please explain what you mean in more detail.

            As I have said above, when v = 0 the two frames are the same and there is no ambiguity!

          • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

            That means we are not dealing with anything which has v greater than zero, This finishes relativity.

          • Lee Whittaker

            No. Why must it. dtau / dx’ doesn’t have to be zero in the stationary frame, as explained numerous times in the discussion.

          • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

            dx’/dtau has nothing to with stationary frame of reference. I have already sent you a small note which shows by definition in simple calculus it is equal to zero. We are concerned with increment of x’ when we allow an increment in tau; x’ does not change as it is constant in system k; hence it is zero. No more arguments over so simple issues.

          • Lee Whittaker

            Yes increment of x’ with respect to tau in the stationary frame. The fact that you state that dx’/dtau has nothing to with stationary frame of reference indicates that you have no idea what is going on. Frame of reference is the key point in relativity! Its what relative means!!

            And it’s not dx’ / dtau that is zero when v = 0, its dtau / dx’.

          • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

            It has been simply wastage of time with you.

          • Lee Whittaker

            I’m sorry you see it that way.

          • Lee Whittaker
          • Lee Whittaker

            Just look at the Lorentz transformations, when v = 0

            tau = t
            xi = x
            eta = y
            zeta = z

            The two coordinate systems are identical.

          • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

            In that case the very exercise of Einstein was useless because we have to permit a positive or a negative value of v so that Einstein’s exercise could have any sense.

          • Lee Whittaker


          • Lee Whittaker

            Negative velocities aren’t a problem. Just means the moving frame is moving in the negative x direction.

  • Khalid Masood

    TIME THEORY OF EVERYTHINGCreated and Written by KHALID MASOODTime Cosmology: [Time to re-study Time] TIME THEORY OF EVERYTHING is The Time Universe Theory. I propose, only Time exists in the Universe. Only Time exists and all that exists is Time.At the heart of physical sciences is physics, and at the heart of physics is Time. The Universe itself or the laws of nature are time.Time Creates Space, Life, Consciousness, and the Universe itself. You, the computer, everything is part/form of time.Time is the only entity. Our classical and modern view of the physical world is wrong.Time tells matter how to create, matter tells time how to survive! No particles, no waves, not both and no vibrating or dancing strings. Only “FLUCTUATING EXTREME LEVELS OF ENERGY” write Everything of the Universe, including our consciousness and also Theory of Everything!!! The only truth about the physical universe is that the universe is not physical. Life and matter of the universe, is nothing but a physical illusion. The smartest phenomenon of the universe is the universe itself. On the whole universe is shapeless, massless and weightless.I CAN PICK IT UP!!! Einsteins second law, m = E/ c^2 i.e. m = E/ c2 [ How mass drives from pure Energy] raises the question whether mass can be understood more deeply as energy. And can we build, as Wheeler put it, “Mass Without Mass”? are the best predictions in favour of my “Time Theory of Everything.” In my view the first question is How pure energy drives from time?. The universe is not what it used to be, nor what it appears to be, as Frank W ilczek of MIT quoted in first chapter Getting to it of his book titled “The Lightness of Being” [ mass, ether, and the unification of forces ] also supports my theory. Infinity is finity on the whole. There is nothing original under the physical phenomena. All physical properties of the universe are secondary in nature.There is a universe behind the physical universe which is dark and primary universe. If a Theory of Everything is Holy Grail of cosmology, Time Theory of Everything is Holy Grail of Modern Physics! Physicists are hunting for an elusive particle that would reveal the presence of a new kind of field that permeates all of reality. Finding that Higgs field will give us a more complete understanding about how the elusive universe works! I believe in bold imagination in research. I believe the universe is not acadamic, and is not bound by our physical theories. Capture Higgs particle, eyes on a prize particle, the search for the Higgs boson [God Particle] and creation of micro black holes is nonsense idea. Higgs boson is not destiny. We have to re-study TIME and ETERNITY. Basic and primary stuff of the universe is not physical. All matter, energy, and fundamental forces of nature are secondary and referred by a unified primary force of nature. There is a co-ordination force in between God and all secondary forces of nature, which is more important than Higgs boson. I suggest this force is TIME. Higgs boson [God particle] should be named Time particle.Time is invisible presence and the only basic building block of the universe and everything in it. Time is so central to the state of physics today, so crucial to our final understanding of the structure of matter, yet so elusive, that I have given it a nickname: ‘The God Force’! Time is at the very heart of physical discovery from the nature of matter to the origin of the universe. It is also a fundamental driver of everything in the universe. Many of tomorrows discoveries and technologies will emerge from Time physics. MOTHER OF ALL FUNDAMENTAL FORCES. [A union of forces and time] Time is mother of all fundamental forces. “Forces-time” in which time exists as fifth force with four fundamental forces. Deep down, the particles and forces of the universe are a manifestation of time. TIME is a coordination force of the universe and multiverse referred by nature. Nothing has independent existence except time. Password of time is in the Mind of God!Everything in the universe,followed the laws of time. Tell me about the nature of time, I will create the Universe!!! If all cosmologists of the world say a foolish thing it is still a foolish thing! I WILL CHANGE THE HISTORY OF TIME ! God does not play particles’ game with the Universe. Spacetime has no fourth Dimension.Universe is three dimensional. The theory of time “t” as a fourth dimension of space, three dimensions of space and one dimension of time is wrong. All dimensions of space are time’s dimensions. Time is not the 4th dimension. Space is not 3D + T, space is 3TD. Time is the distance between two dimensions. Time is the longest and shortest distance between two dimensions. Time is mother of all dimensions. Dimensions are the result of time. TIME IS NOT A MANUFACTURED QUANTITY. Time has independent existence and is fundamental. Space is a manufactured quantity and secondary form of time. Space is only a display of time. I believe in infinite extra time dimensions only, and I know what these dimensions are, but I don’t believe time as extra dimension with space. I dont believe in extra spatial dimensions.The universe exists in three or 10 dimensions of time. [as string theory proposed, 10 of space and one of time dimension] There isnt just one dimension of time, says Itzhak Bars of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.There are two. One whole dimension has until now gone entirely unnoticed by us. Two time / 2T Physics [New scientist 13 October 2007, Hypertime, Cover story] Why we need two dimensions of time? Why not we need 11 and many more dimensions of time? A NEW HYPOTHESIS: [EXTREME LEVEL COSMOLOGY] EXTREME LEVEL THEORY: The study of the theory that all fundamental particles and vibrating one- dimensional strings are fluctuations of zero-dimensional and unidimensional Extreme Levels Of Energy. Extreme Level Fluctuations create the universe.Extreme level connections create mass, gravity, forces and everything in the universe.No-particle Proposal:Elemental building blocks of Nature are not particles. I dont believe particles in any shape or dimensions as basic building blocks of matter, energy, and everything in the universe. I have an alternative Fluctuating Extreme Levels hypothesis which is a part of my Time Theory of Everything [Extreme Level Theory] Extreme Level Theory suggests that basic building blocks of everything in the universe are composed of Fluctuating Extreme Levels of energy. In Extreme Level Theory of time, Extreme Levels correspond to different entities and quantities. If Extreme Level Theory proves correct, photons, electrons and neutrinos are different due to changes in the fluctuations of extreme levels. Prior to Extreme Level Theory, subatomic particles were envisioned as tiny balls or points of energy. Extreme Level Theory works on the premise that the tiniest subatomic bits that make up the elements of atoms actually behave like Fluctuating Extreme Levels and not like vibrating or dancing strings. Photon is no more now a particle, a wave, or has features of both. Photon exist at fluctuating extreme level of energy.About the “Origin of Mass.”For decades, the prevailing view in physics agrees that the Higgs field gives mass to matter, with the mediated by a boson particle called Higgs.But no one has seen the Higgs boson yet, despite the considerable time and money spent in his quest to particle accelerators.Time Field:The mass comes from the interaction of matter with the “Time Field” or “field Time” and not from field Higgs. There is noHiggs Field.Time field is “zero point field” and zero energy state of time-space.Time field is the lowest energy [zero-energy] state of time. That is extreme level of time in my T.T.O.E.TIME THEORY OF GRAVITY TIME GRAVITY:Gravity is time’s force. I believe in my ‘physical’ motto: “Time tells space how to create, space tells time how to expand and bend.” Deep down, the particles and forces of the universe are a manifestation of time. Time is the distance between two places. Time is the longest and shortest distance between two places. Gravity is a manifestation of Time-space. P.S: It’s Time-space and not space-Time. TIME COMES FIRST. Our entire research focus must be on “How time interact with matter and energy?” and “Time, matter and energy, how they interact with each other?” Time can take the form of motion, light, electricity, radiation, GRAVITY….. just about anything honestly. Time theory of gravity is the best rival of General Theory of Relativity and Quantum Loop Gravity. TIME THEORY OF EVERYTHING will change the phenomena of new physics-extra dimensions, entanglement, entropy and information, black holes, tunneling, Bose-Einstein Condensates, chaos and complexity, dark matter, dark energy and meaning of Matter, Energy, Natural Forces, Consciousness, Life & Extraterrestrial Life and Death. It’s not time, it’s matter which is disappearing from the universe. Time is God, God Time. THE UNIVERSE IS A TIME MACHINE!!! God can’t exists outside of Time. Nothing exists outside of Time. I am part of the universe, as my heart is part of me. Therefore I am part of God.Khalid Masoodkhalidcustoms@gmail.com

    • God is beyond time. Time is the reason that freewill and predestination are mutually possible realities that we humans cannot in our present timespace see as visible to God. But God is not time – your god might be time but not the God. He can’t be contained into such nice little packages and explanations, but it is nice to see scientist continuing to search for more knowing current theories have flaws and to keep questioning. We only discover is we continue to question.

    • “Time, matter and energy, how they interact with each other” Time, matter and energy were indeed the three necessary to start everything physical. John Lennox teaches this in an excellent way.

  • Shafiqifs

    @Khalid  Pantheism you propose is not philosophically tenable.

  • sfreddy

    I have noticed that basically you talk a lot and everyone ignores you. I also notice that you seem desperate to have someone pay attention to you and that you have an overwhelming need to be, “Right”. My suggestion is these are not healthy characteristics for a scientist. May you find what you are looking for and not suffer in life.

    • Phil Modelle

      That about sums it up. I ended up here after a journey that started on YouTube. I watched an excellent presentation by Sir. Roger Penrose and then, for reasons that allude me, decided to read the comments section. Shafiq Khan blasted relativity and made continuous references to his “Peer Reviewed” articles. I looked the articles up and noted that they had 178 views. Also, they were only published in the Indian Journal of Science. Hogwash. The lot of it.

  • Andre Smith

    Another wannabe Einstein. Apparently there are quite a few of them out there.

    • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

      But no one has ever come up with open challenge which is standing despite lapse of more than one & a half years.

      • Andre Smith

        Have you ever given any thought to the possibility that perhaps there might be nothing here worth challenging? You are saying the big bang theory is baseless? What about the fact that galaxies are observed to be receding? Is that insufficient? Do you have an alternative to the big bang? If so what is it?

        • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

          Yes! I have proved my claims through published papers which are as under

          1. Experimental & Theoretical Evidences of Fallacy of Space-time Concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe
          2. Foundation of Theory of Everything: Non-living Things & Living Things (Revised version on World Science Database, General Science Journal, Vixra and Academia.edu in my profile)
          3.Michelson-Morley Experiment: A Misconceived & Misinterpreted Experiment
          4. Energy Theory of Matter & Cosmology (Revised version on World Science Database, General Science Journal, Vixra and Academia.edu in my profile)
          5. ‘On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies’ by Albert Einstein is Based on Trickeries (www.elixirjournal.org Feb.2012)
          These publications are available at http://www.indjst.org (March 2012,oct 2010, oct 2011,Aug 2010) http://www.gsjournal.net, http://www.worldsci.org, viXra, Intellectual Archives & Academia.edu in my profile.

          I have given the perfect & only possible alternative to Big Bang Theory through above mentioned papers which have been published in peer-reviewed journals.

          You got to understand that receding galaxies does not prove Big Bang Theory or expanding space but it also means the matter in galaxies is receding physically in the absolute space.

          • Andre Smith

            Well, I look forward to hearing the announcement of your Nobel Prize.

          • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

            My primary concern is that truth should prevail on this planet for which I expect reward & award from the obvious & evident Creator of the universe & life therein.

          • Andre Smith

            I have to admit that the “creator” is not “obvious & evident” to me. Have you seen this very informative little video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDAT98eEN5Q it is only 10 minutes and explains an awful lot. If you are Muslim, watch it and weep for lost opportunities.

          • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

            Now is the time of Islamic Age. It is Neil Tyson who should weep for his illusion of so-called knowledge. I have been telling him to accept the open challenge since long but he has no answer to it. You better tell him to accept the open challenge.

          • Andre Smith

            We see here the perfect example of why the Islamic world is condemned forever to scientific irrelevance. You know the answers before you look at the evidence. That is very poor science.

          • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

            Science is not the permanent inheritance of the west. West did enjoy the advantages of technology for some time but it need not be always like that. Yes! Muslim world is presently scientifically irrelevant but it need not be always like that. Soon they will take over in every field. Rest assured.

          • Andre Smith

            It would be good if the Muslim world was able to shake off it’s religious superstitions and join in with the scientific enterprise. There are hard scientific problems to be solved and we need all the help we can get. There is a lot of human potential going to waste. Everyone would welcome contributions from the nearly quarter of the world’s population that is now being squandered believing in things like flying horses, the moon splitting in two, the existence of angels and Al-Qadar. This is very sad, as there are many very intelligent people who will never achieve what they are capable of. I don’t mean to single out the Muslim world. The same applies to many Christians too.

          • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

            Misinterpretations, misrepresentations & corruptions in religions could not used to reject the importance of religions in human life.I accept that there are different religions with contradictory claims and all the contradictory claims could not all be right. There has to be just one correct religion and it has to be the intellectual endevour to find out that one correct religion and therein shall be ultimate answer to all the scientific problems, human sufferings & purpose of human life.

          • Andre Smith

            The importance of religion in human life is one thing. It may be very important, or not important at all. That has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the true nature of the universe. You say that “there has to be just one correct religion”. This is not necessarily correct. I agree that at most only one religion can be correct, but there is another possibility that you do not seem to have considered: perhaps NO religions are correct.

          • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

            The question of perhaps or may be is required to be addressed very appropriately & that could be done scientifically and philosophically. The question of nature of universe has been addressed by me in the published paper ‘Experimental & Theoretical Evidences of Fallacy of Space-time Concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe’ which could be read by everybody at http://www.indjst.org/index.php/indjst/issue/view/2885 which reveals that adopted paradigm of physical science is incorrect and according to the only paradigm of physics which emerges there is obvious & evident Creator of the universe. Having done that one could easily conclude that there has to be a very well defined purpose of creating the universe & life therein including humans.

      • moto perpetuo

        I’m going to phrase this as kindly as I can; please be assured that nothing I write here is intended as an insult, just as an honest appraisal. The fact that no physicist of any standing has responded to your ‘open challenge’ should not be interpreted as vinidication for your theories. Professional scientists have a great deal of demands on their time, not least their own research. Unsolicited papers are often unwelcome, and many if not most professional physicsts receive a deluge of papers every month from amateurs or ‘fringe’ scientists who believe they have proved existing physics wrong or discovered something genuinely novel. Most of these papers are long and deeply incompetent, and even beginning to read them would be a complete waste of time. To be blunt, we have better things to do. I have looked at the first few pages of your paper and can see why nobody has bothered to respond to your ‘challenge’. The first reason is that – and I mean no offence by this – it is rather poorly written, it ranges across several different dihttp://www.libertariannews.org/2012/03/31/indian-journal-of-science-and-technology/sciplines rather than concentrating on one, and is by an author unaffiliated with a major institution. The latter point is sufficient for most physicsts to disregard it without further investigation. The first few pages dealing with special relativity exhume arguments the world of physics was having in the 1920s. Arguments, I might add, which have been exhaustively examined theoretically and experimentally and settled to the satisfaction of everybody bar a few dissenting voices who are apparently deaf to reason. The argument is over. No serious physicist is going to bother reading past the first few pages, let alone wasting hours or days of their life arguing with somebody who thinks that 80 years of theoretical and experimental evidence is irrelevant.

        • I see. All of the big questions are settled. All that’s left is working out the details – right?

          I find that position to be laughable. Science can’t even present a unified theory. It’s been over a hundred years since GR and SR were proposed.

          Van Flandern, along with many other physicists, have demonstrated that Lorentz’s version of relativity can account for all observations using LESS assumptions than SR or GR make.

          Here’s a nice list of failures when it comes to modern cosmological theory:


          • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

            I would simply inform you that you are a misinformed person because you should have known that there is not a SINGLE DIRECT EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE OF SPACE CONTRACTION TILL DATE which Lorentz transformation predicts. Further Stephen Crothers has also shown GR as baseless through published papers in peer-reviewed journals. Please see his personal web-site for details.

          • Yeah, did you see that exchange between Corda and Crothers? Corda actually came out and admitted there was no such thing as black holes.


          • moto perpetuo

            ‘peer-reviewed’? Don’t make me laugh. Crothers is an international nuisance who has never been published by any credible journal and who spends most of his time writing unpleasant and aggressive emails to people immeasurably more knowledgeable than he is.

          • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

            Truth is generally unpleasant but visit his web-site to see for yourself that his papers were published in double blind peer-reviewed journal. You are lying in this open forum.

          • moto perpetuo

            If you think a few publications in the crackpot-fest that is Progress in Physics counts. It’s a joke publication offering an outlet to those whose work is too nuts to get published in a serious journal. If you search for Crothers’ name in any of the citation databases you will find that he has never published a single peer-reviewed paper in a serious journal.

          • I see, only “serious” journals that talk about things like invisible “dark” matter, strange matter, charms, etc.. etc.. have any value.

            Nice ad homs. Of course, you could simply respond to Crothers’ arguments, but that would just be absurd. It’s much easier to ridicule people instead of responding to their arguments.

          • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

            Well said Michael. moto has not bothered to see Crothers web-site to see that he has actually published papers in peer-reviewed journals. Further he does not understand the value of the open challenge based on published papers. moto should have known that Progress in Physics is double blind peer-reviewed journal.

          • I think he knows full well what he is doing. I find his behavior to be disgusting. It doesn’t matter though. Reality does not change itself to fit incorrect theories. Eventually GR and SR will be relegated to the trash heap where they belong because the truth cannot be covered up forever. In the long run, perhaps after we are both dead, truth will supplant the lies.

          • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

            I appreciate people who prefer to stand out of the crowd with the truth they know despite the fact the whole world believes otherwise. So Michael I appreciate you for knowing that SR & GR will eventually & ultimately be relegated to trash bin.

          • moto perpetuo

            Progress in Physics is a joke – nobody in the professional scientific community takes it faintly seriously.

            Crothers has been repeatedly proved wrong – the reason nobody bothers answering him these days is that he goes on parroting the same incorrect arguments however often he’s shown *why* he’s wrong.

            And if you think my behavior is disgusting, what would you think of a physicist whose idea of reasoned argument was calling another physicist a ‘shithead’? Because that’s what Stephen Crothers does when somebody who actually knows what he’s talking about takes the trouble to answer one of his letters. This is an unedited quote from a letter on Crothers’ website:

            “You have rightly earnt yourself a bloody nose, and if not
            for the distance between us I might well have visited you to deliver the
            causative blow, not because of your incompetent technical argument, but because
            your behavior has been that of an arsehole.
            It seems that you are doomed to live and die a conceited shithead, and,
            moreover, a conceited shithead who cannot do even elementary geometry.”

          • Yeah, and what did the guy say to him to provoke that kind of a response? Crothers is explicitly saying that he’s responding in that way, not because of the science, but because of the critic’s attitude. If you clicked through the link I provided, you can see Corda AGREEING with Crothers assertions, yet still saying he will not publish Crothers’ work because he doesn’t like Crothers’ ideology. It’s fucking absurd.

            And besides, arguing about who the bigger asshole is, or what credibility a journal has, ultimately has no bearing on the validity of Crothers’ arguments. His arguments are either valid or invalid, the reputation of the journal or his personal attitude has no bearing on that.

            I’ll shut up if you simply answer the first proof Crothers offers up against black holes, namely that r strictly plays the role of the inverse square root of the Gaussian curvature of the spherically symmetric geodesic surface in the spatial section of “Schwarzschild” spacetime and so does not itself denote any distance whatsoever in “Schwarzschild” spacetime.

          • moto perpetuo

            I can disprove Crother’s so-called ‘proof’, but what’s the point? It requires a couple of pages of working, and you wouldn’t understand it, unless you’ve done five or six years of advanced math. Do you have a working knowledge of Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates? Well, you’ll need one to understand why Crothers is so completely wrong. It’s only arrogant amateurs who think that professional scientists should be able to employ a snappy soundbite to defend solutions which took decades to reach.

            For the record, Crother’s correspondent was completely courteous throughout the exchange. Crothers was the one who decided to employ foul language. And I quoted it because it speaks volumes about the character of the man, and his contempt for reasoned scientific discourse.

            His opinions are straightforwardly invalid and have been disproved dozens of times by better mathematicians. It is only his overweening arrogance which prevents him from seeing this.

          • LOL – So prove it, and submit a paper on it. Crothers shows the mathematical proof of what r is. I don’t need to be familiar with Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates because that has absolutely no bearing on the definition of r, the so-called Schwarzschild radius. You are simply misdirecting with jargon to cover up the fact you have no fucking idea what r is.

            I can follow Crothers math quite easily. If I can follow the math, I’m sure a smart guy like you can follow him too. So just explain where Crothers goes wrong for me.

            I find it interesting that Dr. Corda didn’t bring up Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates when pressed on this point. Why do you think that might be?

          • moto perpetuo

            “LOL – So prove it, and submit a paper on it.”

            WHY would I do that? Waste effort on proving incorrect what the entire scientific profession knows to be incorrect? Amateur mathematicians seem to think that professional scientists have some sort of duty to prove them wrong when they write technically incompetent papers. If we wasted our time doing that there wouldn’t be any time left for actual research.

            “I can follow Crothers math quite easily. If I can follow the math, I’m sure a smart guy like you can follow him too. So just explain where Crothers goes wrong for me.”

            A stupendously arrogant statement. If you think you can understand the math of GR without specialist training, you haven’t understood anything at all. Here is a not particularly exhaustive list. As I have said repeatedly, this is a highly technical subject and the non-specialist who thinks he understands what’s going on really *doesn’t*:

            He misunderstands the nature of the Schwarzschild radius; he incorrectly states that 0<r<a is undefined on the Hilbert metric; he does not understand that the Schwarzschild metric defines two separate regions; and

            "I don't need to be familiar with Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates because that has absolutely no bearing on the definition of r"

            But it has a lot to do with where and why he is wrong. If you're not equipped to get involved in the argument, don't bother.

            "I'm not buying the crap you are selling. Go try and pull the wool over a dumber person's eyes."

            Look – the guy you're choosing to believe dropped out of his PhD. On the other side of the argument is virtually every professional astrophysicist, cosmologist and theoretical physicist in the world. You've backed a loser here. You probably want to be right, but you know you're not. I can see how that's frustrating, but sometimes you have to admit when you've made a mistake and move on.

          • Mohammad Shafiq Khan
          • moto perpetuo

            Incorrect, I have read a number of his articles and first looked at his website some years ago. PiP has zero credibility among professional scientists.

          • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

            Well Progress in Physics is a joke, Stephen is a crank without any credibility; then the simple question arises why so far physicists have failed to produce a single valid rebuttal to the papers published by Crothers. You need to bear in mind that a few physicists have tried & failed.

  • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

    I would like to keep you informed that the open challenge has been sent to almost all professors of physics & universities of the world and so far two retired professors of physics namely Jeremy Dunning-Davies of Hull University & Brian Cole of Columbia University accepted the challenge but both of them finally failed to show a single error in the papers on the basis of which open challenge has been put forward. Evidently accepting the alternative theory would reduce their degrees to trash & morally they will have to quit their jobs. Through the published papers it has been established that the adopted paradigm of physics is based on irrational & mathematical manipulations and on which the castles of Particle Physics, Big Bang Theory, Quantum Mechanics and almost all physics have been constructed. Now when all manipulations are mathematically, experimentally and theoretically exposed; it is very strange that main-stream physicists turn a blind eye to this exposure. It is a well known that physicists like Stephen Hawking, Neil Tyson, Lawrence Krauss, Michio Kaku & many more are virtually selling atheism using the physics which is based on irrational & mathematical manipulations. The simple question is that are there no truth loving physicists on this planet and has the conscience of physicists died en-masse? This is a very genuine question and I have taken a vow that I will make truth prevail, come what may, and I request every genuine human being to intervene so that adopted paradigm of physics is out rightly rejected & correct philosophy of physics is adopted.
    The main-stream physicists have taken over all educational institutions, research institutions, scientific journals of the world and humanity is being deceived by adopting physics which is fundamentally incorrect.

  • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

    It is high time when humanity could look for scientific proofs of whether God exists or not. The million dollar question is; could there be substances which humans cannot physically see? Like soul, God etc. as existence or non-existence of God would define the purpose of human life or purposelessness of human life respectively. If we scientifically establish that there are no substances which humans cannot see then God, religion, a defined purpose of human life are simply irrelevant & senseless concepts. Under Big Bang paradigm there could not be any such substance besides there was no space for God to exist at the time & before the Big Bang and the question of God being responsible for Big Band does not arise. If we accept Big Bang paradigm then we should just close the chapter of God, religion & any well defined purpose of human life once for all times. Actually this has been my concern for several years with my whatever knowledge of physics I had during my education & whatever I could gather during the period of my concern.
    Thorough analysis revealed to me that the concept of space which was held from the time of Aristotle through Newton till 1905 was correct whereas concept of time from the time of Aristotle through Newton was incorrect. Einstein with the help of crude & incorrect mathematical manipulations (which have been exposed through published papers) distorted the state of existence of space which lead to Big Bang Theory. During the course of my research it was revealed that physical universe is the electromagnetic phenomena and light/radiation being an electromagnetic wave-motion and only substances with electromagnetic properties could be seen through light/radiation and all forces of nature including gravitation & nuclear forces are electromagnetic forces.The charge ( which humans can never know objectively) is the condition of some substance and this substance per se could never be known objectively and there have to be substances which humans can never see physically as such substances do not have any electromagnetic properties like soul & God.
    Humans are not only physical bodies but besides physical bodies humans have soul, substance responsible for life phenomenon, substance wherein the actions done by them are stored. Soul within the humans could be perceived by existence of the Ego, innate knowledge of the Creator and most importantly a very well defined book of innate moral law and the latter is with only humans as the species.The only task of all prophets was to convey the eternity of the soul and to warn humans that their afterlife will depend upon whether they adopted the book of innate moral law, which has been inscribed by the Creator in their souls, or not. Once the book of innate moral law is opened (this could be done by only genuine & philanthropist philosophers) the basic & fundamental principle of this book is that humans should live peacefully & justice should prevail in all human societies. Humans are living like everything other than humans because religions have been corrupted and this basic message was not conveyed.

  • Mohammad Shafiq Khan