User talk:StevenCrum

Special relativity
Can we then ask you to make the modifications as you seem to know where you're at and if you need help in doing the changes we can help you. That is in order to prevent removing that GA article and just bringing it up to the quality of the others with your modifications. Lincher 17:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Lincher and Steven - I assure you both that any attempt to do will be quickly reverted and treated as vandalism. --EMS | Talk 04:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * And, I have no intention at all with trying to make any site changes that would obviously be viewed immediately as vandalism. Even any and all changes that might be dead-on right in real science fact and truth would be seen as that. And, that is why I am writing here instead.StevenCrum 04:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am glad that you at least know enough to keep your ideas out of the article space. Now if you would kindly extend that that the Wikipedia space, that would be idea.  As someone with alternate ideas of my own (albeit relating to GR isntead of SR) who has kept those alternate views out of people's hair here, it is strongly requested and expected that you will fully do the same. --EMS | Talk 20:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Concerning your point about keeping my ideas out of Wikipedia space, the truth is that what I have written is solid FACT about an undeniable Einstein error. The factualness of this has the information above the level of just "ideas" or "opinions" and is then fully and factually associated with notifying Wikipedia of an error that they can then adjust their recording of relativity in truth and fact, or leave it as it is in falseness. So, is it wrong for me to "discuss" this in the Wikipedia location that is PRECISELY intended for the purpose of maintaining truth and factualness in the articles? If that is the case, then the word "hypocrite" applies also. But, in any case, the decision here is to stand up and maintain truth and factual adherence to truth, or to deny it. It is entirely the situation whether Wikipedia will maintain a standard of truth and excellence, or to fail at that. Your choice. I have done my part in writing the factual truth involved.StevenCrum 04:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken
Steven -

I have read as much as I could of you work. What I see is a diatribe by someone who does not know relativity theory at all. For example, in your first section you document how clocks can be synchronized. That method is known, and is called the Einstein synchronization procedure (as Einstein described it in his 1905 article introducing SR). However, the relativity of simultaneity arises from that and the postulates of relativity. Yet those defining postulates are never mentioned. Similarly, you show no awareness of the Lorentz transformations in your work either, yet those form the mathematical foundation of relativity. Your claims are the kind of thing that people said about relativity in 1906. However, this is now 2006. If that line of reasoning could bring down relativity, it would have done so long ago. --EMS | Talk 04:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You are the one who is mistaken, and the following explains the facts concerning this. First, Einstein used the synchronization as a foundation proof that was supposed to then lead to the postulates. Einstein did NOT use postulates in his original paper as part of the proof factually because you cannot use results of a paper in the proof involved in the paper. So, the postulates and Lorentz transformations that also resulted from the synchronization being assumed as correct, are not a part of whether the original calculations Einstein used are correct or wrong. In fact, the math and science calculations he wrote are factually wrong and proven as such by the description I have written here. Your error also is in just assuming without reading and going through the description and calculations provided. So, you can call it a diatribe or whatever, but you aren't even examining the facts of the writing. Written description that no true science and math examination can even possibly deny as far as truth. I also have far more understanding about relativity and the Lorentz transformations than you think. And no, this is not 1906, and instead is the year 2006 when the Einstein error is finally described in truth. And no, the falseness of relativity was not found by anyone for 101 years now, and that says something huge also. It is still solid fact that in any case the science and math truth has been presented, and that undeniable truth in fact cannot be disproven by even one single scientist using truth in math and science anywhere in the world. The math and science description written stands all alone in any and all proof needed.StevenCrum 04:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have also added a section at the bottom of my user page that shows the real science error in the Michelson-Morley experiment. The description shows that there was no need for Einstein's or Lorentz's false descriptions for the failed Michelson-Morley test failure. Lorentz contractions are not real science and are only the false science involved in Einstein's and Lorentz's thinking of rods and ladders being different lengths in different viewpoint reference frames. The distances are NOT different and the descriptions on my user page prove the fact.


 * Link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:StevenCrumStevenCrum 08:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

As best I can tell, the underlying point of your write-up is that relativity is inherently incompatible with classical mechanics. That is well known. However, every experiment done so far confirms the predictions of relativity.

In terms of Einstein's paper, you do not understand the logical path. Einstein first raises the issue of "what does it mean for clocks to be synchronous"? Then he provides a definintion based on an exchange of clock pulses. Then he goes back and brings in the constancy of the speed of light. From that, the relativity of simultaneity is demonstrated.

At this point, I have said enough. All that I will tell you is that your ideas have no place in the article space. In addition, your opinion did not justify that attempt to remove the GA status from special relativity. --EMS | Talk 20:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I respectfully say that what you have described above has no truth in it at all, and truth written in this reply is factually correct. And if there is truth on this board then the following truth needs to be considered in equal respect and integrity.


 * With that, your first statement about relativity being incompatible with classical mechanics is NOT involved or intended at all in what I have written. The fact involved is ONLY that Einstein made a huge math error, and my writing factually proves the error. This FACT also makes Einstein's first paper completely wrong as far as his initial proof, and this fact isn't just my opinion at all, but undeniable fact. So, you didn't even see the math error fact and truth at all.


 * In your second paragraph, I certainly do understand Einstein's logic path in the synch paper and you truly do NOT. His logic was first to describe a method of synchronization that used distance and velocity instead of the normal use of only time. The equation time = distance/velocity can have distance and velocity substituted into the synchronization instead of only the time. And what Einstein was doing in the first part was to describe how a stationary situation of using distance and velocity could be used to synchronize two clocks. He also had the mirror at B that was located at the exact center of the two directions of light travel, and this then making the synchronization method he proposed then work. He then wrote the light speed equation part that then shows the light velocity in both directions is constant and the same. All of this is only to prove taht his arranged setup will in fact accomplish the abilty for synchronizing two clocks. That also worked, but only because everything was EQUAL in the stationary test part.


 * He did NOT describe clock pulses in the synchronization part, and the only thing he did have involved was observers sitting at each clock location where they could see their view of all of the clock readings during the test. So, trying to insert extra things into the test that weren't there is not correct or right for what Einstein had written or intended. His writing instead is factually exactly as he wrote it and as I have described here and in my written description.


 * And, concerning your statement about "the relativity of simultaneity is demonstrated" that isn't even close to being correct. Instead, the facts are that Einstein's statement that I have included in the article, where he said the observers on the rod and those in the stationary view had seen different views of the clock readings is factually wrong. The rod observers FACTUALLY saw the same exact clock readings as all of the ground observers and there was NO synchronization difference observed by any of them at all. That is entirely solid FACT, and the written description test I have provided proves this to be dead-on right fact as factual as fact gets.


 * In truth, your comments are loaded with untruths that are not included in Einstein's papers and are attempts in trying to add more and change the true Eistein description. And concerning your final comments about my description being only opinion and not suitable for being written here and an abuse to the GA standards, I have only one thing to say in response. And that is that it isn't me that is abusing the standards of real truth and factual correctness, and it is you instead that is not living up to truth and the standards of excellence and correctness that SHOULD be here. And since you aren't able to see the truth in Einstein factual math and science error that is written in my user space then it is you that is failing to look enough to see that truth and then not living up to true standards of what Wikipedia ought to be. In the end, it is your thinking that shouldn't have any place here, and all because it is dead-on factually correct as being wrong.


 * So, the truth and facts are in my written article, and you can live up to truth and credibility, or whatever less situation of denial and bad standards that are wanted.StevenCrum 02:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I will give you one example of you lack of understanding of relativity. From you write-up:
 * You can also note that c+v is a velocity that is faster than the speed of light and which Einstein himself said was impossible to exist.

c+v is a "closing speed". In my own frame of reference, objects can move around in all sorts of ways, and I will given tham a relative veolocities which are directly additive in my own frame of reference. So a beam on light heading in one direction at c with respect to me, and another object which is heading in the opposite direction at v will naturally be found to be converging at a rate of c+v by myself. Now if we should go to the frame of reference of the other object, the light will be found to be coming at the object at just c, and for that observer the closing speed of myself and the light will be c-v. Note that closing speeds can go as high as 2c (for two light beams traveling in opposiet directions).

I have studied relativity for years. How about yourself? I also assure you that I have seen this type of argument many, many times before, and that they have been seem many, many times before. Kindly be advised that when relativity first came out and started to become prominent, many people went on the warpath against it. Arguments like yours were made a-plenty. What happenned in the end was the Hermann Minkowski proved that relativity was self-consistent in 1908. After that, the opposition over time just fell apart. It has now been decades since there has been a credible effort to disprove relativity. Your line of reasoning is the kind of thing that was tried in 1906 and which I have seen on USENET numerous times. It has not worked before, and it does not work now.

You seem to hae a good head on your shoulders (as most people with your type of idea will immediately start editing the article itself, but you actually know better). Step back and look again at relativity, and at what you are trying to say about it. See if you can prove to yourself that you are wrong. --EMS | Talk 02:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Your first comment about closing speed is obvious in the non-relativity, real-science world also, and you even missed my point about Einstein using the c+v when he had declared that any speeds faster than c were impossible. It doesn't matter at all whether I even mentioned that one little c+v at all, because that wasn't even a part of the math test. But, you will NOTE how fast you jumped on the ONLY thing you could even come close to proving was an error.


 * The FACT of the matter is your excuse there still does NOT disprove the intended math that still exists fully that PROVES Einstein's error. You cannot disprove my math calculations and description because it is IMPOSSIBLE to do so.


 * The FACT is also that it is you that doesn't understand relativity, and that it is dead wrong and mathematically by my description to be FACTUALLY THAT. And, for your information, I do understand the fantasy theory of relativity, so my so-called not understanding the slop isn't even close to the real science situation at all. So, you can stop the garbage about my not understanding the totally wrong fantasy error taht the entire wolrd in their ignorance didn't figure out was wrong in the past 101 years. That is their and your error and not mine. My true science description is light years down the road of TRUE SCIENCE and your garbage isn't even real no matter whether you understand the dead-on right FACT or not.


 * And your thing about you studying relativity for years only shows how long you fell for the totally ignorant slop, so I wouldn't exactly go bragging around to much by showing your true situation there. For information in the real science world, it is a solid FACT that I am right about relativity being fantasy science and you are dead-wrong, and proven as such by my article. If you want to deny this fact forever it still doesn't change the factual reality even one single bit.


 * Concerning your thing about attempts at disproving relativity in the past, I hate to burst your pathetic bubble here, but it is no longer a situation of "attempts". My written proof, for anyone with credibilty and truth in their principles, can easily see the full, factual truth of the matter that my writing has accomplished the fully true situation of relativity has been proven to be a huge failure of Einstein's inability to do the required synchronization math that was the first and main foundational part of his false theory. If you aren't able to understand this factual TRUTH, it isn't an "attempt" but instead a "BLASTED THE ENTIRE THEORY SLOP INTO OBLIVION" as far as real science truth and reality. So, you can do your low-level denial thing endlessly fro all I care, and be dead-on wrong as long as you want. You will only and factually be seen to be the hypocrite by doing so that you are. It is YOU that isn't looking at the math proof provided and NOT me at all that hasn't looked plenty at the totally ignorant slop of relativity.


 * You are totally clueless about one huge fact here. YOU are embarrassing yourself right out in front of the entire world by showing taht you didn't have the professional integrity to even read and go through the calculations that proved relativity to be wrong. Just thought it might be good to point out that little gem of solid fact and truth as it exists in the real science world here. Enjoy the view from your situation as you get to see what comes in the world very soon now. I will give you a hint - you aren't going to like looking like a fool. But, it certainly is going to involve full truth and justice completely. Have a nice day, there won't be many of those left for you.StevenCrum 01:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Look - If this is real, then you have a Nobel Prize in physics waiting for you. By all means, send this off to a scientific journal, and see what happens. I assure you that the journals will be interested in this if it is as sound as you think it is.

Having said that, I will also warn you that I doubt that your article will be accepted. If I was reviewing it (and I assure you that I will not no matter where you send it to), I would say that your math is sound but instead of refuting relativity theory you are describing a new theory of your own invention. I would note that this theory very much accords with the predictions of luminiferous aether theory, but also note that you fail to state how the special reference frame where light travels isotropically is to be found. I then would note that your views are refuted by the transverse Doppler effect, and experimental confirmations of E=mc². Oh yes, and I would recommend against publication of your article.

One final warning: Once anyone starts shouting "TRUTH", they have ceased to do science. As I have seen in myself and many others, it it the job of the "anti-" to convince themself of it if they are wrong. You definitely should not drop this until you are certain that you are wrong, but if people keep saying that you are wrong then you will need to address those concerns, and calling people names does not address any concerns but those of your own ego. --EMS | Talk 01:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * First, there is no way that any Nobel Prize would ever be given to someone who doesn't have their required dignified status in the science community. So, that was baloney from word one. And, just to keep the record actually straight and truthful that would be factually twenty-two Nobel Prizes as of this date also. And, not including this synchronization which wouldn't qualify anyway. But, since there have been 50 of their prizes that aren't even good science, I don't have any desire to mess with their low-level science thinking anyway. For information also, your science journal description is farcical as well. I actually had another scientist, I think actually from Cambridge, that said that if I kept on writing their would be pragmatic scientists that would listen to anything that was truth in science. THAT turned out to be embarrassing to the suggesting person when it was found out how hypocritically narrow-minded his science community was. They spout the open-mindedness to cehck present science and change in truth, but the actual situiation is they are arrogant in their self-proclaimed acheivemnets and are totally inable to look beyond their noses. So, your thinking is actually pathetically naive.


 * As far as your second paragraph, the situation is that it is OBVIOUS that my calculations are NOT describing a new theory, but are factually COMPLETELY describing ONLY the huge math and synchronization understanding error that Einstein FACTUALLY made. So, your new theory baloney has no truth to that at all. However, your other point in that paragraph says it all - you are fully in the group of people who are so set in your ways and thinking that you have absoltely no ability to do the "checking of accepeted science" either. This is procalimed as being a truly high ability of so-called professional scientists today, but is in fact laughable as far as anyone having the integrity to actually do what they arrogantly spout. So, that untruth is nothing but baloney as well. And no, you are NOT able to even look intelligently in reveiwing the truth in the true science article I had written. And, if you thought I didn't know of the situation of present-day scientists being so full of themselves that they wouldn't look even at real science fact and truth, you are then completely out of your mind. I FACTUALLY knew the ignortant situation from the very first letter I typed in that article.


 * As far as your next point about luminiferous aether, there is no such thing existing in the universe and I am not describing any such thing. And, the light source situation is factually that, beyond Einstein's so-called intelligence) the light source can be on either the rod or another viewpoint velocity frame, and each location causes a different affect. This is because, as proven by the real science, light does not travel at light speed through all reference frames. By the way, Einstein's ignorance about rods getting longer and shorter in diiferent frames is nothing but science ignorance. You might note that the real math of my calculations not shown in the article has Einstein's total slop of the rod in the viewpoint of the rod observers actually INCREASING in its length by 8.33 feet. (200 to 208.33) The farcical rod length change by the "incredible genius Einstein" (sarcasm if not understood) in the ground observers view is from 200 to 166.67 feet. Of course none of this length change occurs at lower speeds in everyday life as we know it, but who in the world would doubt the incredible genious ignorance of Einstein, huh? So, you might not look at the true science and math facts, but they still exist whether you do or don't. It's TRUTH and you cannot change the factualness of this truth one single bit.


 * As far as your doppler affect and so-called experimental confermjations of E=mc^2, the real truth involved with that is there isn't even one single thing you can provide that shows either that I don't know the factual real science truth for every single one of those. One of the so-called experiments that "proved" E=mc^2 is the MIT/NIST experiment that had neutrnos hitting neutrons in their deep water tanks. They added up three energies that was supposed to prove E=mc^2 to be true. They got their farcical information from seeing an electron and an anti-particle flying outward after the neutrino hit. They then made their THREE energy calcs. The problem with their farcical experiment is that they have this ignorant wrong-science thinking that neutrons are changed into electrons after being hit. The real science FACT is that neutrons don't even exist as particles, and they are FACTUALLY a proton and an electron magnetically attracted together, and the PAIR is seen as a neutron. This little gem of fact is also the same thing in their farcical beta decay. The real science of this then is that there are ONLY TWO energies involved in the neutrino hit, and NOT three. The simple fact reason is there is no energy invoved with changing a neutron into an electron, because the electron ALREADY exists as itself. And gee, what does this fact prove? It proves E=1/2mc^2, which is the real form of energy involved instead of the farcical E=mc^2. Don't belive it? Don't. It's still dead-on right fact in any case. And, if you care to tell me any other of the so-called Einstein proofs I will be pleased as punch to blow every single one of those of of the water by real science fact and truth as well. Be my guest. As far as your last point about your not recommending publications, I am not asking for your approval.


 * As far as your last paragraph, it is your ego and wrongness in science that exists here whether you understand or believe the fact or not. That is TRUTH, so it is your issue in failing to self-examine and not mine. The article stands factually all by itself in TRUTH, and doesn't need any further help or approval from even one single person here or anywhere else. In any case, you are the one who as failed to examine the presnted math and science throughly to then determine the truth or not. And, by your own words you have factually stated you had not. The reason this is incriminating to you is because the math and science in the article is FACTUAL TRUTH IN SCIENCE and MATH. This then makes you wrong in everything involved. However, I fully expected such responses from the very first letter typed.


 * In the end, Wikipedia can be seen fully as hypocritical, or whatever they choose. Right now, everything written here demonstrates fully and truthfully that you and others here are total hypocrites as far as turth in professional science, math and ethics. And, don't blame me for accusing or any other garbage because it is only those here in denial of the truth that have proven themselves to be precisely what they are. You don't like it - go look in the mirror for the truthful cause. And, if you don't want to be called a hypocrite then don't be one. Your choice. And, don't think I am holding my breath in waiting. My gosh, what lunacy that would be.StevenCrum 03:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

General relativity
I removed your disruptive rant from Talk:General relativity. Please be aware of our policies, no original research, assume good faith and no personal attacks. Thank you. –Joke 14:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Good for you. I removed you from my list of people with credibility. For information, what you did was exactly as I expected and quite frankly, I expected it much earlier. So, there is no problem at all with your choice; it was and is a truly good example of hypocrisy whether you have the ability to understand the point in any case.StevenCrum 03:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

False theory (moved rom talk:special relativity)
There is a factual math proof presented that describes the written mathematics proof that factually shows that all clocks described in Einstein's first 1905 paper for the synchronization involved with a moving rod is entirely false. As the written true description describes in the mathematics involved, the same exact time reading exists on all four clocks involved and there factually is no time differences between clock readings at all.

The undeniable math proof then proves special relativity to factually be a false theory in science.StevenCrum 05:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Your alternative theory has already been shown to be wrong on your talk page. Please keep your edits out of this article. Errabee 17:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Your description of an alternate theory is in total error for the factual reason that what I have written is NOT a theory at all. Instead, the math proof I have written is a proof of the falseness of special relativity. The full situation here, which is undeniable by the way, is that Wikipedia may have claimed to have had the math of special relativity checks and has claimed it passed that check, but it is a FACT that the written math description of the math error factually proves Wikipedia's math check as a failed check.


 * So, you might think this doesn't belong here, but your thinking is completely wrong IF Wikipedia is going to stand up for any credible truth in its existenec for maintaining truth in its articles. If the lie of special relativity wants to be continued in complete disregard for truth then whoever wants to go that fully hypocritical direction can make that choice.


 * For the record also, your so-called proving of the written error description as being wrong is nothing more than a pathetic joke. The truth instead is that there isn't even one credible math professional on earth taht can disprove the written proof. You might note the FACT that not one person has been able to write a math proof that counters the proof I have written. The truth is the only way my proof can be proven wrong is for someone to show in the math written where the the errors in my writing exist. That is factually impossible because the written proof is correct and impossible to disprove, but the so-called failure of my math prof is only people spouting oppinions and not backing their baloney with math fact. So, your point is baseless and false in any case. You might not understand standing up for truth, but I certainly do, and stopping discussing the truths of this would be hypocritical. And, unlike some, I am factually not. So, disprove the math proof, or do whatever else of junk you choose to do.StevenCrum 02:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You have proven nothing. Your "math proof" only shows that your mistaken view of relativity is incorrect, and indeed it is.  In the meantime, please keep this stuff out of the article space and its related talk pages.  The subject in those talk pages is the article, not the theory. --EMS | Talk 15:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have written endless emails with you concerning the math proof, and not once have you ever shown mathematics that disproves the true math that I have written. The result is factually taht I have provided mathematics for everyone to see, and without any disproving math proof of the mathematics from you, the end situation is that your opinions are factually only opinions. Get a competent math professional that can provide the disproving math proof and then it will be in the area of professional science and not your endless relativity opinion slop.


 * So, whether you understand the facts, or not, yes I have disproven the total false slop of relativity. You might not understand the factual killing math, but it sure as beans factually exists, and in the world of real science relativity is now factually dead. Get someone competent who knows real math and find out for yourself. Or, do whatever other excuse you choose next. As far as my staying off your boards, that is no problem at all simply because the level of science that I am on is light years above the board junk. So, no problem there.StevenCrum 02:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

no personal attacks
Stop your personal attacks on editors of Wikipedia. If they continue, you will be blocked. –Joke 15:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The only personal attack type of things you are describing as such are in direct comparison to the comments written to me. The only comment type that I am aware of is where I have indicated a state of hypocrisy if Wikipedia and others don't live up to professional standards. With the fact that the vast majority of comments here have factually been excuse types of comments where they continue endlessly in the publishing thing, and which I have repeatedly said my thing is the math error that the Wikipedia math checkers did when they declared relativity perfect math then their excuse responses are only trying to divert from the issue. I have also contimuously through emails with EMS provided endless math descriptions and he hasn't even once written the only thing that applies to my math proof, which is a counter mathematics proof that proves the truth of mine wrong. In the end, his things are only continuous diversions concerning truth in math and professionalism also. And, any scientist with a graduate degree should easily have enough intelligence to understand and then repsond professionally to truth in math and science. As far as if anyone is hypocritical or not entirely depends upon their choice of showing the situation by their responses. It all involves truth and not attacks at all. As far as blocking me and truth for this board, be my guest. I have better things to do than explain endlessly truth and professionalism to any who don't have ability to respond to truth. So, go for it if it makes your day of suppressing truth and credibility.StevenCrum 02:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Steve - I could just as easily accuse you of the same things for refusing to accept my explanations of your error. The point of "assume good faith" and "No personal attacks" is that we are all in the same boat here, and that for the sake of Wikipedia we need to be polite and considerate of each other.  --EMS | Talk 17:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * EMS - Your explanations have never addressed even once any disproof of the math in my proof. And, disproving the proof I had written is exactly where the issue exists, and not in endless evasion of going to relativity elements that don't even exist if the foundational math proof fails. You don't seem to understand that if Einstein hadn't established his syncronization math proof in the very beginning, absolutely none of relativity would have even seen the light of day. The truth is that his killing error didn't get detected. If the error had been found then relativity wouldn't even be known now.


 * In order to stand on truth in science and math, relativity can only exist in truth if the math foundation always holds in truth. The math proof shows that it does not. This then leads to the situation of if you want to prove relativity is still true somehow, you need to redo the math foundation, or prove my math proof wrong. Discusssing anything beyond the foundational math is avoiding the issue and pretending the truth will just go away. So no, it isn't right to discuss endless books that help understand the oddness of relativity, or equation descriptions that occur after the foundational math. Foundational math is the only issue that has to be proven first. Or, prove my foundational killing math proof wrong.


 * You have a good point in your polite comment, but that goes in two directions also, and fully involves the situation that if I provide a credible math proof then it is also fully inappropriate to describe my writing as nonsense, ludicrous, soapbox, and general arrogant thinking about the truth I had written as being beneath the level of whatever here. In the end, if my writing is met with that type of arrogant denial of the truth, then I will throw the same right back as fits. On the other hand, professional courtesy will get retruned courtesy.StevenCrum 19:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

False theory (moved from Lorentz transformation)
False theory The Lorentz equations have been proven to be false by the entirely factual math and science truth that it is impossible to have both a velocity and a non-velocity existing at the same time. This sameness is factually one of the main elements of relativity and Lorentz equations for relativity. It is also a fact that clocks in syncronization have to have the Lorentz equation calculate to zero, and the unsynchronized clocks are required to always calculate to a non-zero value. It is then impossible to have the same velocity be both zero and non-zero at the same time.

This fact entirely proves that the Lorentz equations and all of the false science associated with it are then factually wrong science.StevenCrum 05:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please keep your incorrect proof out of the relativity related articles and talk pages. Errabee 15:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It just so happens to be a factually correct, and undeniable math proof that not even one math professional on this planet can deny, but I have no intention of writing on your false-science board in any case now. So, you don't have to be annoyed by math truth at all.StevenCrum 02:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've yet to see the first proof by you. All I've seen on your user page is one ludicrous postulate after another. Perhaps you should study this guideline and this one, and quit adding your nonsense to this encyclopedia. Any attempt to do so will be considered vandalism, as you've been warned often enough. Errabee 16:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have just pasted the Lorentz math error math proof on my user page. You can now see the first proof easily. As for your use of the term "ludicrous" I think that is a reference in a personal attack on me. Also, "nonsense". And, writing the true math proofs on my own user page is only vandalsim to me, and if you want to ask me I would tell you I don't think of it as vandalism. As for the other "false theory" notes that I had written in sections, your vandalism point is lame also because the notes were only comments put in a discussion area, and factually not making vandalism changes on main pages at all. I might even point out that your "opinion" writing here is vandalism on my user page, which factually has more truth and point to it than your lame excuse thing. It might be good for you to note that it is good to have truth and a point behind what you are going to say before you spout drival. And, before giving any more lame opinions about the Lorentz math proof, you might actually try to write a math disproof instead of something equally lame about the color of my shirt or something else that doesn't address the issue other than just spouting your opinion in another "that's not right thing".StevenCrum 05:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * All that this "proof" shows is that two clocks cannot be synchronized in different frames of reference unless they are side-by-side in the direciton of motion (L=0), or the frames are not in motion with respect to each other (v=0). That is an accepted fact of relativity and the Lorentz transformations.  Therefore you have disproved nothing. --EMS | Talk 22:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Your comment about the two clocks being side-by-side is pure baloney, and not that at all. Instead, the math proof, is all about the impossibility that exists in Loretz equations when the clocks are in any and all locations. That impossibility, which you avoid endlessly, involves the math truth that you cannot have both a velocity and a non-velocity of zero existing at the same time. The factual situation with relativity and the Lorentz equations is that both reference frames have the same exact velocity in them at all times involved in the velocity-based viewpoints. The equations for relativity need a zero velocity for synch'd clocks and a none-zero number for unsych'd clocks, and both of these velocity situations at the same exact time. This is the same type of attempt of being required to drive a car down a road at 60 mph, and at the same exact time have it parked and dead still. You can't do both at the same time.


 * Under the principle of relativity, a car can be moving at both 60mph and at rest. In fact a car is always at rest with respect to itself.  It is with respect to the road that the car cannot be both moving and at rest.
 * The Lorentz equations are what they are. Your claims are predicated on there being absolute simultaneity, on Einstein's statement that it can be relative being in error.  However, if you remove that constaint, then what is left behind is a mathematically self-consistent group of equations.  In theoretical physics, the math test is self-consistency, not consistency with any prior pre-conceived notions about reality.  After that, there is consistency with observation.  Your math shows no internal self-consistency in the Lorentz equations, only inconsistency with absolute simultaneity.  That is known.  That is accepted.  IMO, you had made your point as soon as you claimed that the relativity of simultaneity is an impossibility, as all of your "math proof"s flow from that.  IMO (and I think that it is fair to say the opinion of relativists everywhere) it is your rejection of the relativity of simultaneity that is wrong.  --EMS | Talk 19:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well EMS, I hate to burst your little bubble again, but your description of a car at rest with itself also has a itty bitty truth involved with that that just so happens to kill the point entirely. It might be itty, but it packs a whollop of truth. This fact is that a car at rest with itself, as veiwed in that viewpoint factually is at rest with itself. What you are clueless about is the additional fact that there is also absolutely no velocity involved with that viewpoint, or reference frame as you would describe it. This gem of factual truth is that the car can be moving in a velocity down a road and that situation then has the same velocity from a ground view with the car passing by, and the same exact view from inside the car of the ground outside moving by at the same exact velocity. While all this velocitying is going on between the car and the ground, there also exists your non-velocity view between the car and yourself sitting in the driver seat. Gee, ain't that a toughie to bite, and a revelation that there can nbe mixed velocity viewpoints all at once. For the sake of what direction is trulyup there can be a whole lot more intermixing of velocity viewpoints inside each other as well. That EMS, in baseball, which I am not all that hot about anyway but fits the moment here, uses the term "strike one". Actually, it is likely after all the emails about this also, strike 29 or something in that area. But, for this moment we will go start again at one. Two more are coming for certain.

Okay, with regard to your second paragraph, we won't have to wait long for more strikes. As far as your comment about the Lorentz equations being what they are is correct, with the truth being that they are false and that is fact. So, I agree fully with that statement od dead-on right truth. As far as your next statement about removing the single constraint, so the Lorentz equations then stand on their own, I will buy that situation for the moment even though the Einstein error is fully fact and truth that kills the Lorentz equations. So, for the moment you can slither around that fact and we will just use the Lorentz baloney all by itself and see if you can make that ultra-heavy lead balloon float in relativistic fantasy world. (I think I feel a strike coming soon here. And no, I haven't read the remaining part of what you wrote yet.) Your points are as follows.


 * 1. You stated "In theoretical physics, the math test is self-consistency", and even though the consistency meaning is that the equations just fit together in the same thinking, even if they are false or not, your meaning is likely taht they actually prove something all together and it what the group of consistent equations describe. Well EMS, it's strike two, and factually because the equations do not work together and simply because the equations still require a zero and non-zero result from using the same velocities in the equations. And, you can note that this fact is true even if all the equations are standing right next to each other and with their furry butts all alone. For your next excuse also, no, your pathetic car stationary view doesn't exist in the factually correct viewpoint calculations, even if you would like like mad to slither that full untruth in with gleeful eagerness. Just for a tidgin of clarifying truth here; when you go into the staionary car and you as driver viewpoint you just threw the ground clocks outside the moving car into the ditch alongside the road and we are then looking at a total non-velocity viewpoint. In real science it is required to stick with the subject involved, and not mix untruths into it. Bad science lets anyone throw any slop in they want, which then gets to the truth in science of slop in equals slop out. Oh yeah, that was strike two.


 * 2. Let's see what else is in your thing here. You stated "Your math shows no internal self-consistency in the Lorentz equations, only inconsistency with absolute simultaneity". Hmmmm? Your thing here is my math had to show a zero result and a non-zero result so it would be consistent with the false zero/non-zero of the Lorentz junk, huh? I don't think so. (Think of that statement as you gotta' be outa' your ever lovin' mind!) There isn't even one shred of any kind of truth in any of that. The "Your math shows no internal self-consistency in the Lorentz equations" is fully true in the fact that the real math proof doesn't have to obey any fictitious relativity requirements of internal self-garbage rules until or unless relativity is proven by the foundatioanl math first. Whether you understanmd this dead-on righjt fact or not, the internal self-consistency of relativity is simply saying relativity exists because relativity exists. The math proof uses instead truth in math instead of circular false logic. As far as the last part of the statement about the math proof only proving inconsistency with absolute simultaneity, that is absurd as well, because the proof only involves the two Lorentz equations that are written for relativity. The math proof then only shows how the Lorentz equations fail all by themselves and in the exact way Lorentz was making his attempt to use them. This factual truth is still the fact that the zero/non-zero situation is factually existing in the false Lorentz usage of the equations. This is, of course, proven by throwing your dirver/car stationary viewpoint in the ditch alongside the road and keeping the outside ground velocity and clocks rightly exactly where they fit in truth here. By the way, that's strike three and you're out, and you can take your IMO bat and stick in the bat bin in the dugout.StevenCrum 01:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as your accepted facts that are assumed for relativity and Lorentz equations, that might be accepted in the fantasy relativity world, but it is factually not fact in the real world of truth in science. And, the math proof factually does prove the impossibility described.StevenCrum 02:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should read the no personal attacks guide line as well. I never attacked you personally, I just called your postulates ludicrous, and your theory nonsense, which is still rather friendly imho all things considered. Errabee 00:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand the point about personal attacks, and I truly don't remember any times that I have ever made a comment like a certain person is ignorant, or any other direct reference to any specific person. A personal attack has to be directed to a particular person and not a group or some other interpretation that gets twisted in trying to make it appear like a personal attack. In truth, I don't think you can find even one example of where my wording is any worse than your own. If you can refer to one I would actually like to know, and I will correct the issue.


 * BTW Errabee, you might note that I have factually never even once change any other person's writing here, or done any vandalism at all. The point you might note is that fact is not true about you. I had written a fcatual truth about a false theory on a discussion page and it was just discussion which should have been addressed by intelligent examination, etc. Instead, you vandalized my writing by erasing it from a location that you didn't like it being in and nicely pasted it here where no one could see that truth. So, vandalism is as seen in the eyes of the vandalizer, huh?


 * In getting back to the main issue, you might want to try to disprove the math proof. If you can of course. And, if you cannot, then taht is another issue.StevenCrum 02:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

A simpler proof
Recall that the Lorentz equations are:


 * (1) t'       =  t − (vL/c^2)sqrt(1−(v^2/c^2))


 * (2) t' − t  =       (vL/c^2)sqrt(1−(v^2/c^2))

Add equations (1) and (2) to obtain:


 * (3) 2t' − t =  t

After some simplifications, using established laws of algebra, we obtain:


 * (4) t' = t

In other words, there is no relativity of time. Lorentz was wrong! You have my permission to acknowledge my role in this simplification in the seminal article on the theory of absolutivity you are going to publish. --Lambiam Talk 18:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Now, Lambian, THAT was the most incredible display of credibility that I have seen in the past 10 months, and after writing somewhere around 500 posts or whatever. That is exactly the same conclusion as my proof, because the proof I wrote comes to the same equality of t and t' in the results also. This is that both equations are the same exact equal situation, with v, L, t's and everything else equal.


 * But, you are as right as right gets that yours is an incredibly simpler proof. And, just for that, you get added to my incredible person list. Hmmm? You are the only one on it at the moment, but hey, you're right there at the top of the incredible list in any case. And, good for your truly incredible self.StevenCrum 18:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It would help if those were the Lorentz transformations, but they are not. What Steven is mangling is the result of a relativity of simultaneity description is e-mailed him.  Also, (2) is (1) with a minus sign missing from the start of the right-hand side.  --EMS | Talk 21:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, after thinking about the t=t' simpler proof that Lambian wrote, that description of t=t' is fact in real science, but unfortunately, I forgot for the miraculous moment involved there that the math proof needed involved assuming the Lornetz equation was correct and then showing how Lorentz-s own equation fails. My math proof does that and factually proves the failure. Lambians is true in the real world of science, but doesn't prove the error. (BTW Lambian, you are still at the top of my incredible persons list anyway. You looked truthfully and responed positively to the truth involved. So, you are #1 on the list. Makes your day, huh? Well, not likely all that much, but hey, no one else has made the list. :)


 * As far as EMS's comment, the "relativity of simultaneity" description he emailed me, which I think is his point, is simply his using a simultaneity situation that only exists if and after the foundational math that shows a situation of relativity simultaneity exists in the first place. It doesn't, and didn't even in Einstein's time, but his term doesn't even involved in the truth unless he can disprove the foundational math proof that has killed the relativity of simultaneity. He is simply avoiding endlessly the foundational math issue, and quite frankly, there isn't anything intelligently to discuss until or unless that "fully the point" issue is discussed. Anything that resulted later in relativity can only be discussed after that foundational issue is either true or not.


 * As far as his last sentence about the minus sign, he is correct that the right side of the equation doesn't cancel out in the adding of the two equations, and the minus sign is the situation. In relatity and truth, the entire right side doesn't even exist, but that isn't the issue involved with disproving the Lorentz false equations either.StevenCrum 03:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Lorentz transformations self-consistency
First let's start with the actual Lorentz equations:
 * $$x'=(x-vt)/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; (1)\;\;$$  and
 * $$t'=(t-vx/c^2)/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}\;\;\;\;\ (2)$$.

Next we will create inverse equations. As the relativity principle means that the (x',t') system can be treated the same as the (x,t) coordinate system, we expect that we can use the same equations for the inverse transformations. The only change is v → -v, due to the motion of the $$(x,t)$$ system as viewed from the $$(x', t')$$ system being the opposite of the motion of the $$(x',t')$$ system as viewed from the $$(x,t)$$ system. So
 * $$x=(x'+vt')/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; (3)\;\;$$  and
 * $$t=(t'+vx'/c^2)/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}\;\;\;\;\ (4)$$.

To show self-consistency, we will now substitute equations (1) and (2) into equations (3) and (4):
 * $$x=\frac{\frac{x-vt}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}+v\frac{t-vx/c^2}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}} = \frac{x-vt+vt-v^2x/c^2}{1-v^2/c^2} = x\frac{1-v^2/c^2}{1-v^2/c^2} = x$$  and
 * $$t=\frac{\frac{t-vx/c^2}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}+\frac{v}{c^2}\frac{x-vt}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}} = \frac{t - vx/c^2 + vx/c^2 - v^2t/c^2}{1-v^2/c^2} = t\frac{1-v^2/c^2}{1-v^2/c^2} = t$$.

So we find that a switching from the (x,t) frame to the (x',t') frame and back again produces $$x=x$$ and $$t=t$$. That is the proof. Your "dis-proof" utilizes as subset of the Lorentz transformations. More egregious is your insistence on absolute simultaneity. Without that, your claim of moving and not-moving in the same reference frame is moot, as the discrepancy can be due to different observers disagreeing on what events occur "at the same time". Object if you like, but IMO it is you who are living in the "fantasy" world. --EMS | Talk 16:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. I repeat that you seem to be smart, as there are some truly stupid tricks for trying to "disprove" relativity that you are avoiding.  I know that relativity blows people's minds (including the minds of many smart people), but that does not mean that it is wrong. --EMS | Talk 16:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Non-relativity self-consistency

 * Before you start crowing EMS, you are about to be proven wrong once again and endlessly I might add. The following proves your farcical proof to be the garbage it fully is.


 * First let's start with the actual Newton equations also:


 * x'= x  and
 * t'= t


 * Which, you might note is describing that x and x', and t and t' don't have any relativity change at all, but still fit the math.


 * Next we will create inverse equations. As the non-relativity principle means that the (x',t') system can be treated the same as the (x,t) coordinate system, we expect that we can use the same equations for the inverse transformations. The inverse of any velocity is also entirely doable if an when a velocity might be involved, and the same truth as described here exists for v as well.


 * x = x'
 * t = t'


 * To show self-consistency in real physics, we will now substitute equations (1) and (2) into equations (3) and (4):
 * x = x  and
 * t = t


 * So we find that a switching from the (x,t) frame to the (x',t') frame and back again produces x = x and t = t. That so-called proof is the proof in real-world physics as well, and disproves your farcial proof as being unique to relativity or as proving anything. It is ultra-easy to prove x = x, as it exists factually in the real world of physics in any case.


 * As far as your false comment of "Your "dis-proof" utilizes a subset of the Lorentz transformations", there isn't one shred of truth in that statement either, and my math proof uses the Lorentz equations as they are written and as intended to then show the math error that exists fully in the equation math entirely. It is still as factual as ever that Lorentz's equations require a zero and non-zero velocity at the same exact time, and that is mathematically impossible. You will note that that impossibility hasn't changed one bit while you are still trying your endless evasion of the factual truth in math. And, your further attempt in cover-up here didn't prove beans, and any competent mathematician can lay that full load of factual truth on you with a fully huge whopping of math truth also. So EMS, you might try to evade the facts and truth, but once again all you are doing is showing how little you know about relativity as you embarrass yourself endlessly in your attempts at suppressing the real math facts here. And, the zero and non-zero fact might be moot in your false IMO (opinion) thinking, but it sure as beans isn't that in the real math world where fact exists.


 * BTW, vandalism occurred on the Good articles site and all my correct answers to the load of baloney there got zapped. Gee, credibility, integrity, honesty and professionalism just don't seem to stick very well around here, huh? Good thing I got it all recorded and documented so the suppression doesn't go unnoticed forever. In the end, truth here only exists when the "whatevers" agree with their suppression version of what they want the truth to be, and actuall truth and integrity are vandalized by those who scream vandalism if even one letter of their false garbage is corrected even in truth by anyone else. Gee, that's integrity and professionalism at its finest, huh? But, you sure as beans wouldn't want to use a word like "hypocrite" or anything else around here either, huh?


 * So EMS, you don't know half of what you think you know, and the math proofs, plus this writing fully and factually prove the point. StevenCrum 03:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Steve - First of all, the Galilean transformations, which describe how one relates frame of reference in motion with respect to each other [in Newtonian mechanics (text in brackets added 22:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC))], are $$x'=x-vt$$ and $$t'=t$$ along with the equations $$y'=y$$ and $$z'=z$$ which the Lorentz transformations share. Please note the "$$-vt$$" without which motion between reference frames cannot be described.
 * Secondly, your idea of "credibility, integrity, honesty and professionalism" seems to be doing as Steven Crum says without question. That is none of the four, especially if the person has reason to believe that you may be wrong.  You may as well be Einstein in 1905, trying to tell us that relativity is true.  Back then, we would have bounced his work in just the same way.  (It was years before Einstein's work became credible enough to justify its being described here.)
 * Thirdly, the removal of the GA challenge was due to your failure to make a convincing case for your viewpoint to any other Wikipedian. In fact, the note in the edit history of the closer was "policy is policy".  See the diff.
 * Fourthly, you don't understand the core principle in this discussion: Good math based on a bad assumption is useless.  The Lorentz equations don't fail in your view because they are inconsistent, but because they permit a relativity of simultaneity that you cannot abide by.  At the same time, your proof fails for relativists because we accept the relatvity of simultaneity, and therefore see your math as being corrput at the core.
 * Finally, I do independent research of my own, but have my feet in both the mainstream world (as I accept the core principles of both special and general relativity) as well as in the anti-relativity world (as I refuse to accept black holes as physical). What I have come to realize is that physics is not a matter of declaring "truth", but of carefully creating a thoughtful theory and making a good, solid, sound case that it is a better model than anything else before.  People like you are a dime-a-dozen, and each one has a different explanation as to why relativity is wrong.  You don't impress people because we have heard this type of thing many, many times before.  That is why WP:NOR says that is does not matter whether you are right.  In the end, to keep out people who even you would call nutcases, this is how it has to be. --EMS | Talk 23:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Edward - First of all and in regard to the truth involved whether belived or not by you, the fact is that the farcical Galilean transformations are a product of relativity that only exists if relativity exists in real science truth. It doesn't, and is factually nothing but spit into the wind. In other words, it is just slop that is coming back toward you and hitting you in your face.

As for your comment "Please note the "$$-vt$$" without which motion between reference frames cannot be described", the truth in science isn't that it cannot be described but only that you don't know how to do it. It is factually only real science that is beyond you.

As for your second thing, the truth about "credibility, integrity, honesty and professionalism" is that true professionals know how to respond to truth when it is obviously true right in front of them. This involves openmindedness, even with caution obviously, but open in discussion to truly analyze for truth in science and then advancement in science. In your case, there are obvious truths that have been put in front of you and you have so far had not the slightest ability to acknowledge even one of them. In my situation, I did acknowledge right away one writer's science description simply because, even though it was wrong in the end, I did think it was truth in real science. I have the true ability to always watch carefully for truths that existr and then to acknowledge them. My wife even threw her arms around my neck recently when we both had our opinions on an issue, and even though my point was still right, hers was far better at the time we were discussing. At that time she stated her point and she expected me to stand firm on mine. Instead, I held up a hand and told her there was truth in what she said. I also said I would be doing the same thing when I was so involved in the past as she is now. So, whether you understand about acknowledging truth even if it isn't your desciption, I can and do live by the principle. It is also a fact that you have demonstrated endlessly that you don't live up to the same. So, whether you understand or not, I belive strongly in and do live up to credibility, integrity, honesty and professionalism.

Thirdly, the removal of the GA challenge wasn't even close to the baloney about my not proving a convincing case of the math error at all. That is absurd and you know it. I have provided three math proofs that are factually undeniable in the world of real math and science, and described enough for any competent math and science expert to easily see the truths involved. You and I both fully know it was nothing other than making endless evasion excuses because they didn't want to have to stand up and state why they took away the GA rating. That is over in any case because they obviously don't have the ability to acknowledge past errors and to make the corrections. I noticed they slapped a statement on relativity taht some adjustment may need to be done in the equations. My gosh, what a lame thing; the entire theory is based on the wrong equations and there is no way to adjust them without throwing out the entire lot of them and writing all new equations. true science knows it is totally absurd. But, I have no interest at all in messing around with that level of excuse-making. That's their problem and they will deserve what they get from not responding to truth as professionals would have. So, that's ended.

Fourthly, your statement "your proof fails for relativists because we accept the relatvity of simultaneity, and therefore see your math as being corrput at the core" shows precisely where the truth exists. In the first part about relativists accepting the relativity of simultaneity involves the true situation that you will obviously still accept that lie even after it is proven to be false. This is fact whether you have any ability at self-analyzing your motives and thinking at all. Where you are factually standing right now, whether understood or believed, or not, is that the theory of relativity exists only in your minds in a circular logic thinking of relativity exists because relativity says it is true. What you don't know or refuse to acknowldge is that there is no longer any foundational truths that caused it to supposedly exist in the first place. There is no math foundational proofs, and the simultaneity is only circular logic and untruth. This is it exists because it exists. There isn't any truth in your fourth point either.

As far as your last so-called point, it was very interesting that you stated "physics is not a matter of declaring "truth", but of carefully creating a thoughtful theory and making a good, solid, sound case that it is a better model than anything else before". In one sense there is a small sn=midgeon of truth in that otherwise full pile of baloney. The truth is in the word "declaring", and that word doesn't fit true science and what physics should be. The correct word is "finding" and related to finding the true physics truths that do exist. The true science practice is then to describe the true science things that do exist. What truly don't understand is the fact that is is pure baloney to do your thing about dreaming up some excuse thing for an observation, that you can twist into a believable description, and then have created a wonderful physics description of what is actually in the end, nothing more than pure science lie and slop. It is actually amazing that you would actually write something so unscientific, and that is so far off even the good science principles that are stated as being the way science should be done. But then, if you can dream up a false theory that the journals will finally publish and the gullible world eats it up for lunch, then you have true science success, huh? And, who gives a royal rip about true science and where truthfulness can then lead in furture science. As for that, I don't agree with you on that either, and the real truth is you haven't even been able to see one shred of the truth in the math proofs that I have written. With your understanding of what is good science, I am not even close to being surprised.

You might want to check later today to see the final science that is above world class physics and truly does show a truly huge killer for the relativity slop science.StevenCrum 02:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Steve Crum wrote:
 * the real truth is you haven't even been able to see one shred of the truth in the math proofs that I have written.
 * If that is the case, then the fault is yours in not making it visible. --EMS | Talk 15:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well Edward, you might just want to take a look at the killing third proof on my user page. Make sure you take your glasses along to actually read this one because it is going to be a bit tough squirming around the dead-on right truths shown right there in front of your nose. It's in English, so that helps, unless of course you come back with an excuse of it being in Scandenavian or Timbuktuian on your screen. For what it's worth, I can see off in the far distance a huge black cloud that is coming from your brain cells trying like mad to think up some excuse for this impossible situation also. I can't wait to see what kind of slop garbage you will dream up this time in your attempt at slithering around real science and fact again.StevenCrum 04:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL! Your "proof" works so well that it disproves classical mechanics too! Steve - It's time to give up.  You "proof"s are getting worse over time, not better. --EMS | Talk 18:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as your comment about the math proof proving classical mechanics wrong that doesn't have one shred of truth to it either, and quite frankly, you factually know it doesn't. You also factually know that the latest math proof proves relativity to be dead wrong. Just so you know, it is impossible for anyone having a graduate degree in physics to be so clueless about the truth written that they couldn't understand the math and science facts involved. So, you can write what you have, but it is a fact that something other than the math proof is involved here. And, you and I both know exactly what that real situation is. You want relativity to continue even if it is fully seen to be the lie it is. As for the math proofs written on my user page it is a solid fact that the proofs are not only factually correct, but they are also above world-class physics exactly as I have truthfully described. With that fact, scientists can either accept that fact or continue being embarrassed. It is now time to stop playing the stupid games and to go in the real science direction where truth in science progress is involved and not the dead-end alley it has been in.StevenCrum 10:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Do not disrupt wikipedia to prove a point
Your taking special relativity to GA review after it just close is a case of WP:POINT. Egregious disruption of any kind is blockable by any administrator — for up to one month in the case of repeat offenses that are highly disruptive. As explained we can only accept material which is verifiable: that is it is published in a reliable source. No such source has been provided and there is no case to answer in the review. --Salix alba (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Since you are determined to make the same excuse endlessly I wouldn't think of informing you about a past undeniable error that Wikipedia made. So, I won't be describing truth about that error in the review board that is supposed to discuss and adjust for errors of that type. Be assured then that I won't bother your method of "whatever". StevenCrum 01:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines for your user page
According to this guideline, user pages are not to be used for campaigning against anything. Your user page is used as a campaign against relativity and relativity-related theories, which is not allowed per that directive. Please conform to that guideline, and remove your campaign from your user page. Errabee 15:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My User page is factually not linked to anywhere on Wikipedia, and as described in a top paragraph only being used here as a preliminary writing of a future article. Since I am the only one wroking here I am obviously not campaigning to anyone other than myself. As for you, don't look and you won't be campaigned.StevenCrum 03:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Your assertion that this is for a future article seems a little odd. From your userpage:
 * So, this is the factual cancer cure, and whether anyone wants to believe the facts or not. And, for any idiot that says it doesn't or didn't work, they either didn't look or didn't factually know how to do it right. They can then make all the slop-science excuses they want that then try to protect all of their cancer equipment investments and careers, but it's still just false, self-centered squelching in any case and in fact.
 * The Wikipedia is not a webspace provider. It looks very unlikely that this will ever be made into an article, nor that you have any intention to do so.
 * As for what you've said about campaigning: it's essentially equivalent to saying "Political ads aren't campaigning because only the involved politicians are making them. Turn off the TV and you won't be campaigned to." It's not hard to stumble upon your userpage, which should be apparent from the number of comments you've acquired in the talk section. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You actually have some points that have some truth to them, and you are factually missing another huge point as well. So, I will explain, as is right for consideration to you and also correct and right concerning the other truth.


 * As far as your viewpoint of what I am writing, your thinking is in error because my pages haven't been adjusted and edited as they would have to be for a later date when they are then viewed in an entirely different opinion and viewpoint as you have right now. The point of this is when publishing elsewhere occurs concerning the truths I am writing in advance here now, then the viewpoint would be the vandalizing type that you have now. Instead, the view will factually be the exact opposite of your low, and unapproving viewpoint of the real science involved. And no, you obviously won't believe one word of that but it is still going to be reality very soon now and you will find out in one weay or another.


 * So, you might have the opinion of my writing being a campaign type and for that purpose, but the writing will be viewed soon to be far from that biased opinion.


 * As for your point about the "not looking" statement, there was a bit of actual truth in that obviously. I also actually regretted the way I had written that some and thought that should have been worded a little differently. I didn't change it because the person who wrote had written a worse thing and I responded better than he deserved. You obviuosly won't agree with that either, but what occurred in any case is that he, amongst others here, shoved everything I had written into my shut-off-from-the-world user space for the precise purpose of shutting up everything I had written about the truthful wrong GA rating. They didn't want anyone to see any of the math proofs I had written and it all got pushed out of anyone else's sight and into the nice little concealed place where no one would see any of the truths written.


 * He then actually came onto my private user space where I was writing future descriptions and then saving them on my computer for later pasting as appropriate. The situation was that none of you obviously thought I had been pushed far enough so you wouldn't be annoyed by the science truths that I was writing. It was also incredibly revealing that when I had written the simple truth about relativity being a false theory, which is actually undeniably factual and proven even if everyone here is clueless about the fact, my written truth was factually vandalized and instead of just plain deleting it, it got shoved off the public board. The extremely simple point of this is that people are even coming onto my private user space and still vandalizing my writing with the full intent of shutting up any and all writing that doesn't have their biased approval. You won't obviously agree with that either and simply and factually because not one person here has ever listened to the truths I have written any time before, and all of you have endlessly manipulated every single thing here by twisting and avoiding the truths described.


 * So, you can even shove me off this location as well because I am obviously a bother even here to your manipulated system. But, I will tell you one thing just so you factually understand which way is truly up in this world. Whether you do or don't isn't going to matter worth beans, and simply because even if you do manipulate exactly as you want I am still going to write and store all of the truthful science articles on my computer so they can be quickly provided to the world in an endless stream of full truth and real science. I then, am going to be fully ready when truth gets revealed to the world, whether anyone here likes the facts of this and what is coming or not. One other thing you might note as well is the fact that all of the continued amnipulation and squelching done here is also a full part of what I fully will reveal to the world as well. You might be clueless to the facts of this, but the incredibly bad and ignornant manipulation that is endlessly going on is wrong in anyone's thinking that has any credibility at all, and there are going to be millions of people who are above such bad garbage that truly need to see exactly what a whole lot of groups and people in this world are doing behind everyone's backs.


 * You factually wouldn't agree with that fact either, but that doesn't matter one single bit as well because I quite frankly don't give a rip and am going to stand up for the factual truths involved even if you and everyone else here are as clueless as clueless gets.


 * So, you had a small point somewhere in there, but your main intention is nothing other than vandalizing manipulation, and I factually know it. Go ahead and deny this truth as well all you want. Quite frankly, I have better things to do than to discuss the slop any further. You might want to try a bit of truth and something new.StevenCrum 01:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Be my guest in deleting it. I have already copied and saved all of it anyway. So, your vandalism was expected and taken care of fully in advance of what you are obviously doing. Enjoy what you get to see next when the wolrd finds out exactly what Wikipedia stands for. That is factual suppression of truth and real science, and not even complying with your own rules.

So, you chose the ignorant direction that will get you fully what you deserve for your hypocrisy, and quite frankly, I am going to enjoy seeing the coming justice occur. With that as factual truth, which you have no conception of at all, make my day and zap this location. Steven Crum

1 week block
You have been blocked from editing for 1 week for violations of WP:NOT, WP:NOR, WP:POINT, WP:V, and WP:RS. Wikipedia is not the place to challenge Einstein's theory of relativity. Per Disruptive editing, a continuation of this behavior could lead to a topic ban or a user ban. Please use the block period to seek peer-reviewed scientific papers in support of your argument, if indeed any exist, and if they do not then seek to publish your analysis elsewhere. Durov a Charge! 21:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

On your travails
Steven, you are not the first person who has come up against the problem of objections to what is on your user page. In the end, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a free web host - you get a fair bit of leeway in what you say in your user space, but the fundamental purpose is to help in building the encyclopaedia. It's perfectly acceptable to hold strong opinions, and to tell people about them on your user page so they know what your opinions are, but long partisan diatribes are (a) unlikely to be read by many, if any, and (b) likely to piss some people off big time. I recommend that you include on your user page a few brief statements about you and what you believe, and leave it at that. You can link to a personal web page which says more, if you like, but only the once please (Wikipedia is not a link farm either). As long as you restrict yourself to a brief, calm statement of what you believe, there should be no problem.

In terms of your actions on Wikipedia, and your edits, that is a much bigger problem. Scientific theories are covered in proportion to their significance, as measured by their discussion in reliable sources. We absolutely forbid original research, and that is what you are promoting here. If you don't stop doing that, then experience indicates that you will be shown the door in short order. Guy 11:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

IP edits
Edits from are claiming to be from StevenCrum. If so, please desist from making edits like these. It appears that the inappropriateness of such edits has already been explained to you. MastCell Talk 18:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This IP will be blocked if the gibberish edits continue. TimVickers 20:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)