Frank Urena, PhD

Role

Frank Urena, PhD is the lead author and editor for PhysicsTheories.com. His role is to write, revise, and maintain physics explanations that connect equations to physical meaning.

The author page is included so readers can see who is accountable for the educational standard of the site.

Background And Scope

Frank Urena's doctoral training and research background can be independently verified through his ORCID record (0000-0002-0589-2963). This page does not claim teaching licensure, medical licensure, board certification, institutional endorsement, or official affiliation with any exam body.

The site may discuss interdisciplinary examples, but it does not provide medical advice, diagnosis, treatment guidance, or professional engineering advice.

Editorial Focus

Core focus areas include classical mechanics, electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, relativity, thermodynamics, astrophysics, particle physics, formulas, calculators, and exam-prep explanations.

Finished pages should define variables, state assumptions, use units consistently, include examples when useful, and distinguish settled physics from speculation.

Reader Accountability And Maintenance

PhysicsTheories.com treats trust pages as part of the educational product, not as decorative legal text. These pages explain who is responsible for the site, how corrections are handled, how sources are judged, how privacy and accessibility questions can be raised, and what limits apply to calculators, study guides, and examples.

Maintenance work is driven by local audits and reader feedback. Pages may be reviewed for broken links, malformed symbols, missing metadata, missing schema, thin content, outdated claims, misleading wording, and unsupported credentials. If a page does not meet the current standard, it may be rewritten, expanded, noindexed, or removed from the sitemap until it is useful enough for public indexing.

Readers should also treat the site with ordinary academic caution. Physics explanations are simplified for learning, and many formulas depend on assumptions such as idealized bodies, constant fields, negligible friction, small angles, nonrelativistic speeds, or standard SI units. High-stakes technical, medical, safety, legal, or engineering decisions require qualified professional review and should not rely on a study page alone.

The preferred way to improve these pages is specific feedback. When reporting a problem, include the URL, the sentence, equation, control, or policy line involved, and a short explanation of the concern. That makes it possible to correct the issue without adding vague claims or unnecessary boilerplate.

Trust documentation is reviewed alongside the public learning pages because policies can become stale just like formulas, calculators, and articles. When the site changes its indexing rules, contact process, advertising status, source standards, or accessibility workflow, the relevant trust page should be updated before the change is treated as complete.

The practical standard is simple: readers should be able to tell what the page promises, what it does not promise, who to contact, and how the policy affects their use of the site.