• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Stan Romanek's "Equations:" Good or bad math?

Christopher O'Brien

Back in the Saddle Aginn
Staff member
Snipped from Joseph Capp's UFOmediablogspot

"Recently I received the new issue of “Open Minds” magazine which I consider a excellent contribution to the UFO field. The issue theme covered the most documented ET abduction cases in UFO history. In the issue was a interview and a report on the Stan Romenak case by none other than Aleiandro Rojas . I have to say I read it with great enthusiasm but came away somewhat disappointed. The controversial document was not covered at all in the issue. However the article had one of the equation he had written in his sleep. Stan had claimed a physicist had look at the equation and determined it was actually regarding element 115 which hadn’t even been discovered then. Stan claimed the aliens had told him they tried to give it to the government and they wouldn’t share it with the people so they gave it to Stan. Well I thought here was something I could check and I sent the equation to a sympathetic physicist I know. His integrity for me is unimpeachable he gave up a very lucrative business to devote himself to pure research and to teach. I will let him relate to you what he thought of the one page of equations. He reminded me of something very important “mathematics is easily checked” and he welcomes anyone to check his conclusions themselves."

"'The equations presented to me of one page have some issues. In general, these equations are commonly used in electrodynamics, wave equations and gravitational studies; however, without even going into detail of the equivalences of lines one, two and three, there are some problems with the basic forms of things;

"'1. When using the approximated expansion term on the sixth line for "k" with the Laplacian operator of the first line, first term, it is equal to zero after performing the spherical coord scalar laplacian operation, it is odd to show a long equation with the first term equal to zero. It is also strange to show the first 2 terms of line 6, it is trivial to show "k" is the square of the square root, why do it?

Laplace operator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"'2. I assume the "k" here is the wavenumber, if not, and one uses "k" from the approximation, the unit are still incorrect. The fourth line is omega (I assume and not "double u"), the angular frequency, and if so, is not defined correctly. It should have dimensions equal to "2*pi/seconds"; however, the units are "2*pi/meters2" and are incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_frequency


"'3. The seventh line is a modification for a "Gauss's law" variant involving the displacement field vector "D", in defining the total charge "Q". This equation helps to find the field due to free charges with a spherical field distribution (how it is shown with 4*pi*(assumed to be r^2).This equation is found in most E&M books, but the units are not correct. The "sigma2" should be "r2", where r is the radial distance, not the surface charge density sigma. Here "k" is used as the dielectric constant, or the relative permittivity given by "epsilon/epsilon_0".'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_displacement_field'"

stan1+001.JPG
 
In a sense, it's a red herring taking the time to check up on his evidence and equations when his You Tube exploits paint a far more colourful picture. There's one where he has an LED torch/toy and is being filmed supposedly in a communication trance with aliens. The red light flashes intermittently.


Some guys posted a spoof...

 
In much the way Chris has done, there's another forum where a physicist went through his equations and found them a bit dodgy. Some were genuine equations that made some sense. Many others didn't make sense. The suspicion was that he'd written them using a genuine source, but lacking subject knowledge was unable to write them out in a meaningful way.

If I used a Spanish dictionary to write a book in Spanish, it'd be meaningless :)
 
In much the way Chris has done, there's another forum where a physicist went through his equations and found them a bit dodgy. Some were genuine equations that made some sense. Many others didn't make sense. The suspicion was that he'd written them using a genuine source, but lacking subject knowledge was unable to write them out in a meaningful way.

If I used a Spanish dictionary to write a book in Spanish, it'd be meaningless :)

Looking at the equations, some of them look dodgy. Some look to be differential equations (I think ... my maths is terribly rusty) but aren't but one of them is right and its at the beginning of the 6th line:

k = (the square root of k) squared ... hmmm ... thats profound!!!:cool:

ps Kandinsky, have you a link to that forum thread you mention. I'd love to read it. It would be nice to confirm my suspicions of these equations at least :) Thanks ... paraschtick
 
Back
Top