The simple answer is that Dark Energy & Dark Matter have no experimental evidence to date. If Dark Matter & Dark Energy do exist then where were these substances at the time of the Big Bang and before?

There is a standing open challenge, accept it and produce the rebuttal if you have guts and are right, and get the rebuttal published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Writing long senseless critics does not serve any purpose and that too at my back. Read my published papers in peer-reviewed journals, you have all the answers to every word of whosoever has written all this without my knowledge. The very non-uniformity of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is sufficient evidence that Big Bang has not taken place and the universe had a beginning. I have shown that the universe is finite and surrounded by a sort of substance through which light cannot propagate as a result it acts like a mirror and that is why they are clueless as to the extent of the universe.

Marco Pereira

I do not know who wrote it or when he wrote it, but I fail to understand how one can write and display it because courtesy demands that the person against whom you write should have sought my clarification and informed at least. When I have time, I will read it, and if need be, I will reply. I am sure every answer must be in my papers, which are published in peer-reviewed journals.

Meanwhile, the person who has written it must have had the information about my open challenge, which is still standing despite a lapse of twelve years, he should have read the open challenge, which is now in my profile of ResearchGate also if he had not read it, and accepted the challenge and produced the rebuttal and got it published in a peer-reviewed journal because rebuttal of papers published in peer-reviewed journals has to be published in the peer-reviewed journals. He can do it now also but before doing that he should read my rebuttal to one Lann N. Ramez, who had accepted the challenge without my knowledge and published the papers in a paper repository, not the peer-reviewed journal, without informing me, and yet I wrote a rebuttal which is in my profile as I have uploaded it about three days back, so that he may not have to undergo the same plight as has Lann N. Ramez undergone.

The challenge is also open to you; if you have the guts accept the challenge.

I saw your challenge. You decided to come to my area to push nonsense.

You should have expected that I would take your challenge.

Unfortunately, your challenge wasn't in the form of a question. It was in the form of a poster and I couldn't reply there.

Check your own work. Don't blame the victim.

I have a theory that explains everything without Dark Matter or Dark Energy.

Compare that with you stating: "Dark Energy & Dark Matter have no experimental evidence to date"

In my case, I provided alternative models for Spiral Galaxy Rotation Curve Conundrum. I provided an alternative model to the Supernova Data (Cosmic Distance Ladder). I provided a new model for galaxy formation (the current one requires Dark Matter to accelerate galaxy formation).

So, in my case, there is a model behind it.

In your case, one just has your opinion on it and nothing else.

Yes. I refuted Dark Matter and Dark Energy but I didn't conclude that Creationism was the solution.

You might consider my tone unpleasant. But you have to remember how offensive it is to push a narrative of creationists onto Science.

This is not a new problem. This behavior is not new.

If you want to prove the existence of God, just say it at the Abstract.

In other words, your analysis wasn't impartial... it wasn't intellectually honest. It was biased.

Mohammad Shafiq Khan

You said: There is an open challenge, so accept it and produce the rebuttal if you have guts and are right. Get the rebuttal published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Well.. Your work wasn't really peer-reviewed. It didn't pass a basic inspection.

Why would you place a barrier to refuting your work that you didn't have in publishing it?

You said: The very non-uniformity of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is sufficient evidence that Big Bang has not taken place and the universe had a beginning.

The cosmic microwave background is non-uniform to one part in 100,000.

Do you really call that non-uniformity?

For anyone else on the planet, that is the definition of uniformity.

My theory not only predict the large structures of the Universe (and their location in the sky) but explained how the universe started as a Blackholium at Zero Kelvin (as opposed to infinite high temperature).

Here is the map:

3D galaxy density map of the current universe:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLqkbCAzcJM

The Big Pop Cosmogenesis - replacement to the Big Bang

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHK-Lyb7NfM

Big Pop Article

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202201.0106/v2

The calculations are in the GitHub repository:

SSRN Abstracts

# HU-The Big Pop Cosmogenesis

https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=5012064

# The Hypergeometrical Universe

https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=5012159

Repositories

https://github.com/ny2292000/CMB_HU

https://github.com/ny2292000/HU_GalaxyPackage

https://github.com/ny2292000/HU_Papers

https://github.com/ny2292000/DataSupernovaLBLgov

So, I explained how the universe was created. No God was required.

Unlike what you said, the CMB was extremely uniform and isotropic.

You were just fooled by the coloring...:)

The deformity of vacuum is something which only people in asylum could understand and appreciate.

@Marco Pereira

Let everybody check whether Indian Journal of Science and Technology is a peer-reviewed journal or not, website is www.indjst.org. In half a page of my research paper I have shown the formula E=mc square as incorrect without any doubt whatsoever and that half page is enough to prove the absurdity of Big Bang Theory. You should know that something cannot come nothing, it is absurd.

I have shown that space is filled up with aether experimentally and as such space is absolute and that one fact is another single reason on the basis of which Big Bang paradigm fails miserably. Where did the antimatter go, where from did the non-existent Dark Matter and Dark Energy come and where was it before Big Bang. Big Bang is irrational to the extent of insanity. Be a rational human being before what position you hold.

By the way in order to inform you the source of my knowledge, I have written a book titled Natural World Order and The Islamic Thought and after writing the book I did research and published the papers. Though there are some conceptual discrepancies which I have rectified in the second edition which is being published very soon. My sincere advice to you would be to read the book and don't think it is a religious book but the name of Islamic Thought is there to convey what is the real Islam and what Muslims are doing and what so called scholars have made it.

@ Marco Pereira

I did see the youtube of your theory. Nature is not so complicated as it is much simpler. The great mistake you have done is that you have involued some concepts of the Big Bang paradigm as even a illiterate person will not agree to it if he is told what the Big Bang Theory is. Big Bang is simply preposterous. You might say where was I during last twelve years, I was having serious health issues and I had to face some tragedies in my family. But now I have decided to take this issue to its logical conclusion.

This is reply to your comment. Though Herschel detects infrared spectrum but galaxies emit both infrared and microwave radiation and that is why it is mentioned in the paper

(on the whole)

Read below what is mentioned in the paper.

The results of the Herschel on the basis of

experimental data and images of about a year makes it

clear that more than half of the cosmic infrared

background radiation (it be noted that Herschel detects

only the infrared spectrum of the electromagnetic

radiation) is emitted by mere more than 1000 distant

galaxies (compared to billions of galaxies). It could be

very safely concluded that the cosmic background

radiation (on the whole) is not due to the big bang and the

anisotropy & fluctuations in the temperature of cosmic

background radiation is due to the continuous emissions

of radiation by the distant galaxies.

@Marco Pereira

The answer to the pontification could just be that there is the crystal clear proof,

in the paper 'Experimental and Theoretical...... '

that E=mc^2 is incorrect and baseless. Thus how come they could justify Big Bang. But I would give a formal reply.

Yep.

This is part of the answer inside the attached pdf, that said, your statement is so idiotic that one should make the reply evident.

You said: E=mc^2 is incorrect and baseless.

Can you explain Energy Conservation in a Nuclear Reactor? Where is the energy coming from?

In other words, the observation that rebuts Mohammad Khan's nonsense is plain to see.

Unless he decided to reject energy conservation and is telling us that God is powering all nuclear reactors, then he should retract what he just said.

I mentioned God because this article is all about Creationism. Not about Science.

You are making that journal look worse by the second. :)

This is about the BS about Herschel data:

### **Misinterpretation of Herschel Data**

1. **Galaxies and the CMB**:

- The galaxies observed by Herschel contribute to the **infrared foreground**, not the microwave CMB.

- This foreground is carefully removed from CMB data using advanced statistical techniques to isolate the true CMB signal.

2. **Continuous Emissions**:

- The claim that CMB fluctuations are caused by "continuous emissions of radiation by distant galaxies" is inconsistent with both the blackbody spectrum of the CMB and its isotropic nature across vast scales.

A COMEDY OF ERRORS

Where did my reply go which I have replied half an hour ago

Mixing religion of any kind with science always yields the wrong answers. Religion alone, always yields the wrong answers. Science alone, sometimes yields the right answers, but not so much in modern physics.

@ Forest Noble

I would like to why you think science and religion cannot compatible. I quote you an example that should be enough for you to your opinion.

In Quran there is a verse (41-53) wherein it is stated "Soon We will show you Our signs in space and in their selves also and then they will believe (this Qur'an) is true, is not it enough that your Sustainer knows everything."

Now you can see both, aether is confirmed experimentally and existence of substance called 'energy' has been published in peer-reviewed journal as the source of life containing biological laws.

Papers confirming both aether and energy are available in my profile.

Mohammad Shafiq Khan

You asked: I would like to know why you think science and religion cannot be compatible.

Do you remember "Celestial Sphere"?

Do we have Celestial Spheres and Heaven behind them?

No, we don't.

Do you remember Human Sacrifices? That is Religion.

You asked the wrong question. A scientist would never ask that question. A scientist would show numerical predictions by Religion and compare them to numerical observations.

Instead, you provided a versicle with the word "soon". Does that mean "one day,"..."one year," .... 500 years... or whatever you deem valid?

In other words, if you want to validate Religion, validate Religion's numerical, well-defined predictions (there isn't one).

Any other comment, paper, or argument only shows that you are not a scientist and don't understand Science.

By the way, the constant need to validate Religion is a sign of a lack of faith. You are seeking reinforcement from others.

You don't see scientists doing the same... looking up in the Q'uran or Bible for references.

@ all members of ResearchGate

I wonder about the existence of two substances are mentioned in Quran and we know it now l

is