Radamdeys

This user is a software engineer.

This user has been a Wikipedian since July 28, 2006.

This user has made over
10 edits to Wikipedia.

This user is a member of
the Guild of Copy Editors.

This user is a participant in WikiProject Physics.

\scriptstyle {\frac {\partial ^{2}\Psi }{\partial t^{2}}}=\nabla ^{2}\Psi

This user is interested in mathematical physics.

This user is an engineer.

A, B and C

This user prefers not to use the serial comma.

. The

This user does not put two spaces after a full stop.

UK

This user uses British English.

This user prefers the metric system.

This user is a participant of WikiProject Relativity.

Userboxes

User:Radamdeys/userboxes

Wikiproject Islam

Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam.

fine

Good Wikipedia, Bad Wikipedia

Wikipedia seems like an outstanding idea - anyone can edit a page etc. - but this has obvious disadvantages: vandals seem to be prowling around almost everywhere. Even if you find a sufficiently obscure or technical article to edit, the chances are that there is someone out there who will probably either engage in an edit war or just vandalise the article for the fun of it. Other people to watch out for are those who try to promote their own (unofficial) ideas in insidious and devious ways (for example, by slipping in a few sly links at the bottom of articles which many people overlook). Also, it's good to be aware of reading someone's comments that may initially seem offensive, but their intention is just to help out (especially those whose first language is not English). It's very easy to fall into the trap of 'snapping' back at someone. With wikipedia, patience is the name of the game: it's in the nature of WP that good articles are created by lengthy discussions (over many moons) and these discussions are worthwhile in the long run - if anything, you will always learn something useful at WP - it is an encyclopedia after all ! Also, you may make 'edit friends' here. I have !

My main aims at Wikipedia...

I am mainly interested in contributing to the following categories:

physics | Islam | philosophy

Physics topics that I find interesting

Sandbox articles...

...are those articles I'm rewriting and can be found in my sandbox.

Scientific things I like to think about

What does the EPR paradox tell us (if anything) about the structure of spacetime ?

How fundamental is the second law of thermodynamics and would the existence of white holes violate this law ?

Do wormholes exist and if so can they be used to perform time-travel ? Does Einstein's theory of general relativity rule out closed timelike curves and does exotic matter really exist?

Planck's relation between the energy and frequency of a photon can be derived using special relativity. Does this mean that light quantization is implicit in special relativity ?

Does the general principle of relativity hold for quantum phenomena or is it just an approximate principle ? How fundamental is the principle of general covariance ?

As the reduction of the state vector is a time irreversible process (see Penrose, 'Emperor's New Mind'), must a TOE be time irreversible ?

What implications does Gödel's Incompleteness theorem have for the nature of mathematics? Does it restrict what we can do with mathematics, or does it indicate a limitation of the axiomatic method ?

Weird but intriguing articles

Other things to ponder

Is Zamzam water healthier than 'normal water' ?

Win a million dollars !!! - if you think you can crack one of the Millennium Prize Problems.

Is telekinesis a real phenomena and can current theories of physics account for it ?

At what point does a piece of matter become living ? Do current theories give a convincing explanation for the origin of life ? Can reductionism really explain the nature of consciousness - or life ?

Are some ufo's extraterrestrial ? Did SETI find evidence of an alien civilisation when they detected the wow! signal ?

If the universe really has more than 4 dimensions, what are the others and can we influence (or be influenced by) them ? Are current physical theories which assume more than 4 dimensions unfalsifiable ?

Is Darwinian evolution (DE) unfalsifiable (not because it assumes more than 4 dimensions !) ? It purports to explain the variation of life based on a few assumptions, but appears to explain nothing else - does this mean that it's an ad hoc theory (notice the similarity here with the theory of Lorentz contraction) ? Compare this biological evolution theory with a physical evolution theory, the Big Bang theory, which was not formulated to account for the expansion of the universe - this was a consequence of general relativity; it also makes many other predictions which have been verified. What does this reveal about the scientific quality of current biological evolution 'theories' (apart from it's ad hocness, how much quantitative support exists for DE anyway) ? - I'm not suggesting that DE is totally false, just that it should be tested more rigorously and is probably only an approximation to a more comprehensive evolution theory (in the same way that Newtonian mechanics is an approximation of special relativity).

Some less well-known but important issues

Some political and current issues for consideration:

Should secret societies be banned ? What exactly is freemasonry ?

Think twice before you eat that chocolate bar.

Useful Wikipedia stuff

Talk to me ...

... on my talk page.

Thanks

User:Mpatel for the template.

nice to meet you and help

hi. I am a Wikipedian. during creating the pages on Islam, i require to a good copy editor such as you. can you help me in the way.--m,sharaf (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

request to judge on being religious or philosophical

hi.it is really good to see here some one who is interested in Islamic and Jewish philosophy. lately we have discussion woth another users about accounting an argument religious or philosophical. I believe that this argument is philosophical and those who are familiar with Islamic philosophy acknowledged to it. I ask you to give your opinion about the subject. thanksm,sharaf