It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Stan Romanek Math Equations University of Nebraska and MIT physicists CAN'T debunk it!!

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Microwaves work by manipulating electron spins. What if the formula shown is a specific magnetic property of an element that can produce energy when subjected to a changing magnetic field? Vibrating or manipulating the Nucleus in a certain way and "bouncing" an electron from shell to shell.

What element has 5 valence shell electrons and 7 orbitals? I am at work and can't look at any charts.

Just a thought that came to mind as I was typing something else and pondering the equations.




posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by john124
 


Yes I know that, I have a degree in physics lol, i put that in my picture lol, its a vector quantiity and he equates it to a scalar, namely they drake equation. he is a HOAX


Sorry, you're right!
I didn't see the Drake equation there, and he does try and connect it with the vector equation for some unknown reason.


He's an obvious HOAXER!



[edit on 20-8-2009 by john124]



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


When a charged particle Accelerates it produces electromagnetic radiation. You can accelerate a charged particle in a magnetic field to give off radiation, yes. You can see it with the Aurora borealis, but he just puts equations on the board and equates them randomly. This is not a proof of anything, he just copied equations from a textbook, that is all.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Not saying I don't believe in UFO's, but Stans evidence just seems fishy...

I mean he did fail a polygraph test.... That just indicates RED FLAG for me...

Announcement of Stan Romanek Polygraph Results



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Lovely.

Now will someone please draw up an equation that measures the amount of credibility you lose the closer you get to Stan Romanek?

Please?



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Resinveins
Lovely.

Now will someone please draw up an equation that measures the amount of credibility you lose the closer you get to Stan Romanek?

Please?


Well Here i will try lol

S1=Lsr+5=Hoaxer tot he 10th power

And all stan Romanek crap should be banned instantly...
Apparently he is trying to sell a book or dvd.

So yes let's give a big BOOOO
to this man from now on.

Admins will you please slap a HOAX Label on this and all Stan romanek evidence ..
TY



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by kroms33
reply to post by TheAmused
 


I am not sure what to make of this guy. The 'Alien in the window" video seems hokey - but his mathematical equations are 'out of this world.'

I watched a special about UFOs the other night, either 20/20 or Dateline - can't remember... what caught my attention was the level of almost (ALMOST) serious investigation that was being pushed out by the MSM about UFOs and Stan Romanek.

I am not a skeptic, but a firm believer that we are being visited (but trying to sift through the BS new age wackos) - I am on the fence with this Stan guy. Good post.

S&F!

Peace,
kroms33


I also watched that show. Loved the part where his wife was telling of the time she woke up and he wasn't in bed, only to find him wandering around in a woman's night shirt [not hers]. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the close encounter he had wasn't exactly "alien" in nature.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man
I could scribble down a bunch of symbols, pass them off as intergalactic mathematics and it can't be debunked. They can not be debunked because we have to know the variables being represented, which they don't. I watched that Nightline episode and the mathematician stated that it appears as though Stan Romanek may have opened a physics book and flipped through the pages, randomly writing down variables from numerous equations....and making up some of his own.

Just my 2-cents


In his defense though, the Nightline show was just another debunking show. They were borderline making fun of the people that they were interviewing. Like how the one lady scientist said she was 100% positive that none of these people were abducted because they "All" start out in bed, and that it was nothing but sleep paralysis. Well, evidently, no one ever told her about Travis Walton. And what about the marks, scars, and implants. You don't get that kind of stuff from sleep paralysis.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Oreyeon
In his defense though, the Nightline show was just another debunking show. They were borderline making fun of the people that they were interviewing. Like how the one lady scientist said she was 100% positive that none of these people were abducted because they "All" start out in bed, and that it was nothing but sleep paralysis. Well, evidently, no one ever told her about Travis Walton. And what about the marks, scars, and implants. You don't get that kind of stuff from sleep paralysis.


BUT, can that mathematician that was on Nightline be debunked?

Just sayin'



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by Oreyeon
In his defense though, the Nightline show was just another debunking show. They were borderline making fun of the people that they were interviewing. Like how the one lady scientist said she was 100% positive that none of these people were abducted because they "All" start out in bed, and that it was nothing but sleep paralysis. Well, evidently, no one ever told her about Travis Walton. And what about the marks, scars, and implants. You don't get that kind of stuff from sleep paralysis.


BUT, can that mathematician that was on Nightline be debunked?

Just sayin'


Yes, she can. Simply by the fact that she was not there, or that she was not the one experiencing any of the events in question. She's making claims based on personal opinion. Just because she has a degree or a PHD doesn't automatically make her right about everything. Alot of the abductees are on the same side of that coin. So it's all subjective. But then there are the abductees who have physical evidence to present that shows that something has happened to them. Yet they are still ignored and persecuted. The bottom line is that no one is going to believe anything until it happens to them personally, and even then so many people have their heads so far up their own asses, that it wouldn't matter anyways.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Oreyeon
Yes, she can. Simply by the fact that she was not there, or that she was not the one experiencing any of the events in question. She's making claims based on personal opinion. Just because she has a degree or a PHD doesn't automatically make her right about everything. Alot of the abductees are on the same side of that coin. So it's all subjective. But then there are the abductees who have physical evidence to present that shows that something has happened to them. Yet they are still ignored and persecuted. The bottom line is that no one is going to believe anything until it happens to them personally, and even then so many people have their heads so far up their own asses, that it wouldn't matter anyways.


True, but I will take the word of someone with a PhD in mathematics over someone with a 6th grade math comprehension every day of the week. Just my personal preference.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


WATCH Stan's hand holding the 'microphone' or EMF device (his right hand). NOTICE that he slightly moves the "mic" to his left when the EMF meter's light activates and slightly moves it to the right to stop the lights?

People are too busy watching the blinking light to notice... he is playing magician... gah...



sad.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by kroms33
 
Well spotted. He's a peanut short of a fruitbar. It'd be interesting to see what exactly he gets out of all this apart from negative attention and ridicule. Poor guy.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   
People like this should not be given any attention. Having a degree in physics/geophysics, this clearly is a Hoax. The drake equation is not a scalar either....



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Just wanted to point out, in case you missed it: the second person on tape, Claude Swanson, actually says something to the effect that these equations are meant to show us how to use electromagnetism to alter space-time. So he's apparently on first-name basis with alien math. It's just mind boggling that these people keep straight faces bullsh!tting us all the while.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   
A Ph.D in physics or chemistry isn't necessary to discern the fact that these equations are complete hogwash.

I studied Chemistry for two years in college and that was over twelve years ago. My skills are somewhat rusty, but I can easily state with certainty that those equations are simply an attempt to pull the wool over someone's eyes.

Yes, they might be impressive to someone that has never studied science, or to someone that has only studied math until about the pre-calc level; however, to a (some-what) trained eye it only took two minutes to for me to come to my conclusion.

HOAX..

They're comprised of simple mix-and-match mimicry; straight out of a 1st year college chem text book, and perhaps a calculus text book.

Next please



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Microwaves work by manipulating electron spins.


No they don't.


What if the formula shown is a specific magnetic property of an element that can produce energy when subjected to a changing magnetic field?


A formula can't be a "specific property". An element cannot "produce energy".


Vibrating or manipulating the Nucleus in a certain way and "bouncing" an electron from shell to shell.


You can, actually, flip the spin of a nucleus by applying a strong magnetic field. "Bouncing" of electrons won't be achieved this way.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


The second clip is interesting showing the mockery. Can you explain how it was done? This part was left out



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by tmayhew01
Not saying I don't believe in UFO's, but Stans evidence just seems fishy...

I mean he did fail a polygraph test.... That just indicates RED FLAG for me...

Announcement of Stan Romanek Polygraph Results


Just to be clear, everyone's favorite skeptic debunker Michael Shermer has debunked the polygraph FYI.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 


I'm probably opening another can of worms by reviving this thread for a short bit, but thank you for that video debunking polygraphs.

To the topic, I'm on the fence with Stan. Just heard the open minds blog piece the other day and it brought me back to those equations/concepts.

I've been wondering if the " = " doesn't mean equivalence but more as "assign to", as in " == " in C or such. But if ETs where beaming this stuff into his head and they knew our symbology, math, and reference to our concepts of physics, as is evident, then why would they get the concept of " = " wrong?



new topics




 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join