Talk:Time Cube

This article was nominated for deletion on January 27, 2004. The result of the discussion was keep. This article was nominated for deletion on February 3, 2004. The result of the discussion was keep. This article was nominated for deletion on April 26, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep. This article was nominated for deletion on October 20, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Result of RfAr: In the month of July, 2005, a request for arbitration was left open concerning this article. Both sides were allowed to express their viewpoints. Afterwards, the arbitrators made the following comments. Please leave this section here for reference; any changes will be removed. Accept Fred Bauder July 7, 2005 22:39 (UTC) Accept ➥the Epopt 23:08, 9 July 2005 (UTC) Accept Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 17:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC) Comment: I'm not sure you need the ArbCom to tell you what to do with an incoherent POV-pushing anon ... - David Gerard 10:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC) Reject. As David, this is not a situation where you need arbitration. Just block as needed -- sannse (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC) Reject - Concur with David, shoot on sight, no arbcom needed. →Raul654 17:26, July 22, 2005 (UTC) Reject, agree with David. James F. (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC) Reject. Feel free to block on sight. You don't need our permission. Neutralitytalk 18:43, July 22, 2005 (UTC) For those who haven't been following the discussion... A mostly anon user, referred to as TimeCubeGuy, frequently reverts pages to some variant of this version [1]. The "unofficial" result of the above ArbCom (the case was rejected on grounds that the user was a simple troll/crank) was to shoot this user's edits on sight: that is, if you see the page resembling the page referenced above, it is considered vandalism and should be reverted.

This talk page has too many templates. You can help by adding some more.

See also: Talk:Gene Ray

for related discussion.

Archives
Aug 2004 – Sep 2004 Sep 2004 – Apr 2005 Kosebamse vs. TIME CUBE Apr 2005 – May 2005 Andrewa vs. TIME CUBE May 2004 – June 2004 Trolling archive Archived arbitration Proposed trimmed article May 2005 – Aug 2005 Jul 2005 – Jan 2006 Feb 2006 – Aug 2006

Time Cube Guy

For those of us that have argued with Time Cube Guy and wondered whether he's serious or just trolling, he now has a video of himself on his website: [2]

Judge for yourself. At the very least its interesting to finally see and hear the guy who was once causing so much trouble here. Cheradenine 05:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

How do we know it's Time Cube Guy? Besides that... I think I just got a bit more confused as to whether or not this guy is serious. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 17:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I am pretty sure it's the same guy. He has been active for years on various Time Cube forums...I can't think of anyone else who has gone to such length to comprehend Time Cube.King Mob 18:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I see that Cheradenine has visited the [spam removed]. This version includes a [spam removed]. Kosebamse has already expressed a desire to suppress this new website—for as we all know, Time Cube is ineffable truth.

Personally, I think his accent is a mix of australian and disabled, but I only think that because I've personally dealt with Cubehead and he's a heavily bias hypocrit. I reiterate that that is a completely personal opinion. All I want now is just pure, hardcore fact, not ineffable truth. Plus, if it were ineffable truth, would it be not only a lost truth, but an impossible truth because the truth would have to be discovered, from scratch, by each person seperately? Serious question. Maybe timecube is just the realization that other people live on this planet, which just so happens to rotate? --Duckmurderer 08:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Having met Time Cube Guy in person (assuming that he is the maintainer of the site that he links to), it's still hard to say whether it's a mix of Australian and disabled or simply Australian and shy. Anyway if any of you are interested in speaking about him by name rather than by title, he is -- and he is enroled in the same university course as my sister. She states that she has seen him damage university property repeatedly and that he regularly convulses during class. This may all be simply a cry for attention, but it's not my place to say whether he's actually ill. --202.164.194.254 09:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If he's having convulsions during class, and it's just for attention, maybe he's the mental one and not Mr. Ray o.O Duckmurderer 04:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Reality Check? (and not necessarily a 4-sided one)

I hope that we can somehow get down to the rational truth here: that the Time Cube Theory is utter anti-human insanity and its proponents are a wacko group. Not only is the theory filled with extreme hatred, extreme condemnation, racism, and 100% baseless math (-1 x -1 = +1, get over it. Pi = ~3.14 and cannot be 3.20, less it isn't actually a circle, get the heck over it. One day is one day. IOr have you just gone cookoo?), the fact that I disagree in any way and support altruism and actual science makes apparently makes me stupid, evil, and not fit to exist. It saddens me that a portion of humanity has reached this valley of depravity and delusion. It makes scientology seem reasonable by any comparison... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.64.66.206 (talk • contribs) 9 August, 2006

Scientology are you serious? Scientology is the true definition of a cult i.e you must be a member and pay alot of money before you ever learn "the mighty truth about how aliens created you". 83.91.171.243 02:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

And Time Cube is actually the ultimate salvation for humanity: a salvation for nihilism. The 1-corner science and maths of Academia is death-thought, and dooms humanity to a hell. Time Cube is rationally proven to be the truth of the universe. What you should do is take your altruism, and extend it to the redemption of humanity: a Cubic redemption, achieved through knowledge of Time Cube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.186.1.196 (talk • contribs) 23 August, 2006

No, Time Cube has not been "rationally proven", you and Gene Ray are the only people who believe it, and I'm not sure about Gene. You seem to object to "1-corner maths" even though they work and have done for all time -- indeed, your opinions at Graveyard of the Gods imply you think we shouldn't use maths for practical things at all, and that we should just "do" things instead of calculating them. The rest is just offensive pseudo-racist spiel (and note that if you define one "corner" of Earth to be for whites, and make that "midday", you've now done the equivalent of Greenwich Mean Time, unless you really do want everyone to keep running around the world).

So sorry, but I haven't seen a single reason to regard Time Cube as anything other than a very minor cult, and that's how the article should stay. And please be aware that badgering people and refusing to engage in sensible discussion will not convert anyone to your cause. Dave-ros 12:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I am fully sensible. So here are the responses to your points.

Gene Ray said in his radio interviews: "Midday to midday's a light race day." So it was not midday alone, but the whole 4 corners, merely beginning and ending at midday.

Now the Superman would have the ability to intuitively accomplish things, rather than relying on inhuman technology and volumes of mathematical literature. The human genome contains enough information to construct an entire biological human individual, yet instead of encoding higher wisdom into that same genome, humans insist on encoding it into a WordViral menome, and granting technology inordinate powers. We must restore power to the biological realm to avoid usurpation of power by pseudo-sentient, quasi-intelligent synthetic machinery. The human genome has how many Gb of data in it? Scientific research showed that some of it currently contains junk data that is random noise and holds no content, so we wouldn't even need to evolve into a new species: we merely encode some new information in the place of that junk data.

Time Cube is indeed proven. I suggest you check out the CubicAO enumerated proof. It has been made very clear and perspicuous, so that humans such as yourself will have no difficulty in learning of the Cubic truth.

Far from being a "minor cult" as you claim, Time Cube is the ineffable truth of the universe. You must seek Time Cube.

Ineffable means you can't explain it properly to other people, so stop contradicting yourself by saying it's "rationally proven" on your website. At least you're finally admitting the Luddite undercurrent in your writings -- in fact, combined with all this talk about storing information in human DNA, it almost seems you're talking about the Dune universe... are you or Gene Ray planning a Butlerian Jihad? Dave-ros 12:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Nah, Dr Ray explained it by saying that everything you say has an opposite. So if I say that Time Cube is true, you would say that it's false. Hence, the imperfection of word, and the consequent ineffability of Time Cube. We can express Time Cube with words, but only in imperfect fashion.

The Academians are luddites for clinging to false outmoded beliefs, and not accepting Time Cube. They support the technological state, not recognising its deleterious effects and that it must be superseded by Time Cube.

But Time Cube doesn't actually do anything! Dave-ros 18:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that's very relevent. Looking at the article, there's no description of how Time Cube can make people's lives better if its true. People don't like 'conventional' science because it's true, but because it's useful. Assuming that someone sees utility in Time Cube it would be great to have it explained to us. If it's not useful, it doesn't matter if it's true or not. Pdarley 02:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, after checking out the archives, I've decided that no informed, logical mathematical or physical critique of time cube can convince timecubeguy that time cube is wrong. If there was a rational philosophical argument against time cube he could refute it by saying that it's opposite was also true or that you could (tautologically) say that it is not not itself or something. "Dr" Ray has no evidence. "Dr" Ray has no applications for his theory. "Dr" Ray is not a doctor, or a professor, or an academic. I suspect that that this is the one and only big thing in his life, and as a fanatic he has nothing better to do than waste contributors' time on this subject. I would suggest that no-one respond to unsigned posts on this page (as I unfortunately already have done) --Markjohndaley 12:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"Official" forum

The forum we link to (http://www.graveyardofthegods.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=21) and describe as "official" seems nothing more than links to shock sites and trolling and who is to say it is official? Did Gene Ray endorse it? I think it should be removed. WikianJim 11:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It's the official forum endorsed by Time Cube Guy/--, and promoted by him on his Time Cube fansite. As much of a devotee as -- is, the forum is not official at all, not promoted by Ray anywhere that I can see, and should be removed. --202.164.194.254 12:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the "official" tag, but probably the link should stay. A quick look shows the forum has a lot of junk, but there is a bit of real discussion going on. There isn't anywhere else on the web these things are discussed, so I think it is a useful resource nontheless. WikianJim Some time in August 2006

Now I've taken another look the forum seems to have gone downhill a bit and the junk has taken over. Everyone there seems to think Time Cube Guy is a fake, and almost every thread is dominated by the speculation. Some of the posters are funny, but IMO there isn't really any useful information there. Anyone object to removing the link? WikianJim 08:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the junk is now even worse. It is removed. WikianJim 17:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Links to ED not allowed?

Regarding a recent edit description, "→Parodies - links to that site not allowed per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO/Workshop", the document cited there is a workshop page for a proposed arbitration decision, not an actual Wikipedia policy. In fact, the discussion on that page indicates that the concept of banning all links to that site is highly disputed even among the abritrators, and no final decision has yet been reached. Hence, enforcing this nonexistent policy does not make sense. On the other hand, I'm not sure if the ED link in question is suitably notable, so I'm not restoring it. *Dan T.* 14:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Problems with this article

There are a number of problems here. First, most of the references are not suitable, they are not to reliable sources. Second, I can't find any references to this being published in any peer-reviewed journal; has it been? Third, much of the article seems to be original research, largely because there does not seem to be any discussion of the concept in peer-reviewed journals (or at least none which is cited here). I suspect we have another Aetherometry on our hands here. Guy 22:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The subject is not a scientific one so it's not surprising it's not in peer-reviewed journals, but also not particularly relevant. Which references in particular do you have a problem with? We've got one for crank.net, which is a well known source about internet crackpots. One for the Time Cube site itself, an obvious primary source. Bei Daiwei's article was published in the Humanities Journal of Hsuan Chuang University in Taiwan. "time cube @ georgia tech" is a page about Gene Ray's 2005 lecture at Georgia Tech that is used solely to reference the fact that Gene Ray gave a lecture at Georgia Tech in 2005, the only way unreliability would be an issue here is if the entire site is a fabrication. Finally, there is a reference to metamath.org whose URL is failing to load right now. This reference is in support of a statement that there exist proofs that a negative number times a negative number is a positive number, which strikes me as pretty straightforward to re-reference if it comes to that. Bryan 01:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Where is there sufficient material here to earn the subject a seperate article from its creator's? Ray's university lectures certainly aren't in the same vein as a standard lecture series; they are more invitations to public mockery. I know nothing at all about the Humanities Journal or Hsuan Chuang University. There have been concerns raised in the AFD about it [3]. The ability to reference (-1)²=1 is irrelevant to the article. Most of the content of the current article is uncited (existence of widespread parodies, assertions of being "well-known", notability as an internet phenomenon, suspicions of hoax, and so forth). Over a full screen worth of text is quotations or paraphrased quotations from the primary source. Furthermore, WP:NPOV#Undue weight advises that, in the words of Jimbo Wales, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." Ray and his handful of advocates (or socks) seems the smallest of possible minorities. Why could this not be smerged to Gene Ray, certainly the appropriate "ancillary article"? Serpent's Choice 06:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm addressing the specific point that the article's references are not to reliable sources. The AfD comment you reference as questioning the reliability of the Humanities journal says, quoted in its entirety: "That's not a serious academic article." I'd like to see a little elabouration on that. The other points you're raising here aren't particularly relevant to the issue of the reliability of these sources, but anyway. You're misinterpreting the "undue weight" clause. Time Cube is the "ancillary article" that Jimbo's referring to as the appropriate place for this extreme minority view; the place this material wouldn't belong is an article on Greenwich Mean Time or somesuch. Personally, I don't see a merge being warranted, but if people really insisted on it I'd say that Gene Ray's article should be merged here instead since Time Cube is all that he's famous for. Bryan 23:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah Time Cube has received massive publicity, been widely discussed, and there is certainly plenty of Time Cube content and related content, with the current Time Cube article only touching the surface thereof. Given the amount of content that is of interest to readers both regarding Gene Ray and Time Cube, with the interest being created by the fascinating nature of the content itself and the fact that the subject matter is rather famous, I can say right now that it's perfectly justified for there to be a Gene Ray article and a Time Cube article. Finally, it's not an "extreme minority view" that the Time Cube website, and the Time Cube theory thereon, are famous and worthy of mention and explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Time Cube Guy (talk • contribs) 02:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, I had never heard of this subject until I saw it on wikipedia. Even though I believe that knowledge of even the stupidest ideas can be instructive, I would have to err on the cautious side with theories like this one, primarily because they have no other means of propogation. The reason behind peer review (not just the scientific kind)is that general social concensus can sustain or negate the most evanescent ideas. Unfortunately the world wide web is not an adult intellectual peer system based on merit. Fanboys linking, cutting and pasting turn quirky ideologies into a self sustaining fad. I don't think that this is the appropriate forum for that information. I support the Idea that wikipedia require Peer reviewed and published articles to be used as references. I believe that this obscurist propaganda does not deserve its own page for that reason.. I might buy the t-shirt though. --Markjohndaley 12:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me you're not proposing another VfD!!! I think that as it stands this is an article about an Internet phenomenon (whose sole validation is that it makes people laugh), and thus as worthy of being kept as All your base are belong to us or HA! HA!. No-one is suggesting Time Cube is or should be peer-reviewed -- not us because we know it's barely even pseudo-science, and not Gene Ray because he dismisses the opinions of stupid and evil academics ;-)

P.S. I heard of Time Cube before I heard of Wikipedia! Dave-ros 15:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

To the original comment of it not being published in a scholarly journal... I'm pretty sure any professor who attempted to teach this screed would be shot in outrage by other professors. However, the site has been in the media, and it's a notable internet meme. I think this article needs a tag or a clear reference to the fact that no one besides Gene Ray and anyone batty enough to believe him considers anything Timecube claims as even bordering on reality, though. Something like this:

Nonsense Alert

This subject is complete bollocks. This article describes an internet phenomenon and should not be taken as fact. Sources in this article should be taken with several grains of salt.

Warning: the above template is intended as sarcasm. Humor impaired individuals need not reply.

Well?--Elaragirl^Talk|Count 15:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the "Nonsense Alert", but doesn't the whole concept fall into the realm of "Original Research". I've seen far more valid info removed for such reasons, where's the line when it comes to internet phenomenon? IMHO the theory is intentional offensive and inaccurate to garner attention, Trolling isn't notable. There's far more crazy people in the world than words in the dictionary, as wikipedia isn't a dictionary nor should it be a catalog of "popular" insanity. -Burns 15:14, 06 January 2007 (UTC)

Stub

Why is the article better than the stub? JBKramer 12:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

To minimal. I suspect that people comming to this page would like to read something about the subject. I am not opposed to merging this article with Gene Ray and cleaning it op. Actually I don't know why this has not been done, since there were a concensus for it a while back. Tranqulizer 21:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree; that stub is too minimal. We definitely need to retain the current level of detail in the article, if not add more detail. And no, I saw no consensus to merge the articles, nor would I agree with such a consensus if it existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Time Cube Guy (talk • contribs) 02:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hail to humanity's mighty glorious Cubic future!!!

The fourth attempt to delete Time Cube from Wikipedia has failed, and the article has been kept. My gratitude extends to all the beneficent Wikipedians who have courageously taken this worthwhile action! You have contributed to the ultimate salvation of humanity. Time Cube is the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Time Cube Guy (talk • contribs)

I say, let's keep this paragraph so everyone visiting the page can see what Time Cube's most vocal proponent has to say. This is known as "giving him enough rope to hang himself by", and will undoubtedly convince anyone who was undecided that Time Cube really is a load of old cobblers ;-) Dave-ros 09:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

please, tranq him, bring him down then medicate him, i really feel sorry for his brain stuck in these crazy loops, hees in a scary place and needs ur help 89.241.30.167 00:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Followers of timecube... (?!)

From the lead paragraph:

Followers of Time Cube are known as "Cubicists" or "Cubics".

Is there any evidence that this statement is correct? Google finds 18 unique pages which contain mentions of "Cubicists"[4], all mirrors of this page, wikipedia based spam pages ("Time cube google toolbar", anyone?) or talk pages on graveyardofthegods. Significantly fewer than some less kind names for "followers of timecube" I searched for. I'm going to take this out unless anyone has any (sensible) objections. Anilocra 17:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone is crazy enough to be considered a "follower" in any rationalist sense, unless it's someone mocking the site for ironic purpose. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 00:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am pretty sure everyone who has followed the evolution of this page agrees that at least one "follower" exist.Tranqulizer 18:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Mass deletion reverted

I have reverted this edit. The section has long been in the article and I have not seen any relevant discussion that explains its removal. Please discuss before making such drastic changes. Kosebamse 07:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Impartiality

Looks like this article needs a "lack of neutrality" or "barely concealed contempt" tag. Yeah, okay, maybe there are only two people in the world who believe Time Cube has any credibility, but the the purpose of Wikipedia is not to provide a place for people to ridicule the beliefs of others, no-matter how crazy they are. -Groveller 09:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• The article seems as neutral as possible to me. Nobody actually calls him a "crank" or "crazy nutjob" in first person, all such claims are done with references to outside sources. Considering the bizarre grammar and lack of scientific process or proof, I think the writers of this article did a good job keeping a NPOV considering the unbalanced topic. Prgrmr@wrk 16:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Theory of Everything?

I have serious problems with the use of the term "theory of everything" to describe Time Cube in the first sentence. This has a very specific meaning in physics, and Time Cube doesn't not even begin to dream of coming close to meeting the criteria to be called a scientific theory. It's not even a hypothesis, since those must be based on observation. I would recommend calling it a "belief system." 170.140.8.181 12:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it has all the aspects of "theory of everything" as in "a hypothetical theory of theoretical physics that fully explains and links together all known physical phenomena." If you visit http://www.cubicao.tk/ you can see how the original subject can be organized into such a theory. You may try to disprove it, but you cannot deny that the theories encompass physical, natural and sociological spheres. Maurog 12:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You're correct, it does "explain and link together all known physical phenomena," however it's not a theory of everything because IT'S NOT A THEORY! A theory is a hypothesis that has been verified by experimentation. Tulane97 17:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

"A logical explanation of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation." Which part of this description does it not satisfy? Maurog 13:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Which part does it satisfy? "Capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind" certainly doesn't hold since it makes no significant predictions at all, and certainly makes no predictions "of the same kind" (referring to "linking together all known physical phenomena"): what are Time Cube's predictions re the mass of the Higgs Boson? Regarding quantum entaglement? Regarding rotational gravitational effects (that NASA is currently trying to measure)? Regarding galactic rotational velocity curves (i.e. that which we are currently trying to explain via "Dark Matter")? and on and on. "Capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation" Deosn't seem to fit either, since it is clearly unfalsifiable. According to cubicao.tk any deviation from cubic results is "due to chaos", thus any experiment that fails to meet cubic expectations is simply wrong "due to chaos" and doesn't falsify the theory - and that's even presuming you can find anything in the theory to actually try and falsify - see above regarding the paucity of predictions! -- Leland McInnes 15:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I find that Maurog's comments are correct. Time Cube is observable in the natural universe in a vast multitude of diverse manifestations. See, for instance, the articles in the CubicAO "Time Cube in Nature" category, in which there are stated a huge quantity of observable Time Cube properties that exist in the empirical universe. This satisfies the need for testable predictions and for experimental empirical verifiability.

Time Cube is indeed the one true Theory of Everything, and should be described as such in the Time Cube article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.77.138 (talk • contribs)

Forget it. Look it up in the archives, there's already been an endless discussion about this. The trolls like to gnaw on this matter to annoy people with a grasp of science, but there's really no need to repeat it over again. Kosebamse 05:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Kosebamse, yes there has been much discussion about this but then can the discussion really justifiably cease before the entire human population of this planet has accepted Time Cube and averted the oil-depletion global-warming climate-change nuclear-bomb nuclear-waste armageddon? Greenwich mean time is a fraud.

You say that there is an agenda "to annoy people with a grasp of science", and it's probably true that many people have sought to harass, undermine and suppress humans who are noble and of Cubic virtue and wisdom, and who have transcended base mundane vulgar social conformism by understanding that Time Cube corresponds to scientific empirical truth that exists within this 4-corner TimeCube universe (see the CubicAO Time Cube Proof for axiomatic and scientific proof of Time Cube). Who is truly the cave-troll beating the wiki with its stone club? Educators don't know black from white.

Nature's Harmonic TruthCube disclaimer—truly necessary?

is the disclaimer in the external links neccecary? I thought disclaimers were generally redundant because of some small print somewhere.... except for spoilers. Blueaster 05:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

TimeCubeGuy on simple

Another page to keep an eye on: [5] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikianJim (talk • contribs) 17:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Relativity and time cube

From what I've read, time cube can be easily related to relativity (albeit, an extremely watered down and stupid version). There isn't any exact way that you could determine day x has ended and day y has begun, in time cube. That means every observer from a given point will have a different frame of reference as to the beginning and end of a certain day. That's fairly close to to what Einstein predicted with time dialation, if I remember correctly. Popisfizzy 20:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Timecube Fantasy

I am fascinated by the idea of cubism, but the mere fact that every living person is not in the same exact "time" proves the 360 degree version we know and accept. It is well verifiable that a person standing no farther than 5 feet from you will be in a different time location. This alone is also proof that time is relative (einstein) to the observer. There are many different observers, and many different "times" But the word so cherished by the good doctor is also the "word" that disproves his theory. Simultaneous 4 quadrant time is non-existent because of the mere word "simultaneous" A person who is in the midnight quadrant started his/her measurement of time at Sun-up just like each person on the globe. Conspiracy? Not likely, it merely proves that he had a significant and relative opinion during his lifetime that effected everyone. According to einstein's theory of relativity everyone who wakes up in the morning, wakes up in his particular morning, again relative to the observer. The time-cube theory has merit partly to distinguish the non-linear shape of space, and it is very possible that the shape of space could be geometric. There are still many unknowns, dark matter, the fleeting appearance of time. We see space as linear and occupied by gas and matter, in a vaccuum, which in itself is hardly acceptable. I believe the accepted definition of a vacuum is that of an entity which occupies space wherein the relative differential pressure between gases equals close to zero. Since there is no perfect vacuum, matter can exist. There is no opposite, the fact that we can exist represents the lack of opposites. We percieve opposites from our own perceptions, in the big picture, opposites are relative only to the action that is created by the opposite. When Carbon combines with oxygen, there is no opposite observed or percieved as of yet. I believe that the timecube theory is astounding at pointing out the mystery of our "known" science. As far as a provable theory on time, it is nothing more than exercise for the brain. Hopefully one day by reading the doctor's work in context with all the other work that has been and will be done, someone truly will solve the mystery that is us.

The belief in separated time will lead us nowhere in science, you might as well say they are looking at four different suns as well. 70.92.3.239 05:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi User:70.92.3.239, I disagree with your denunciation of "separated time". If you eliminated the separation between midday and midnight, then you would compress the earth into a flat disc that would lack structural stability and would disintegrate. I guess that your agenda is the elimination of all spatial separation of the universe, and the cancellation of all antipodal opposites into a singularity. See website http://www.timecube.com for denunciation of evil Cubeless singularity.

The word "simultaneous" does not disprove the four days. In fact, it is an accurate description of the four days. Your complaint that various people had "significant and relative opinion during his lifetime that effected everyone" does not in any way disprove the 4-days. I suggest you either find a LEGITIMATE disproof of the 4-days, or accept that they are true.

The opposite of the carbon bonding with oxygen is the CO2 molecule being split apart by the leaf-photosynthesis of a plant, or other similar method. You see, if it is possible to chemically combine the separate element-atoms, then it is possible also to split them apart. See CubicAO article Energy and Matter for further information on these matters, including an explanation of electrolysis, electrolysis being another process by which a compound molecule can be divided into its constituent atoms.

But in fact, Time Cube is rationally proven true. Did you see the CubicAO Time Cube Proof, wherein, specifically, CASE 33 proves that there are 4 simultaneous days within a single rotation of Earth. YOU--must seek Time Cube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Time Cube Guy (talk • contribs)

Saying an argument is rational doesn't make it so. Even a rational argument isn't automatically correct. For instance, I could say "I have been proven rationally to be a doctor". That statement is both false and irrational, and doesn't mean I can prescribe the medication you obviously need. Prgrmr@wrk 16:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ohh boy... Time Cube Guy, I suggest you either find a LEGITIMATE disproof of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or accept that it exists. Oh, hang on, that's a silly comparison -- more than two people in the entire world believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster... Dave-ros 22:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you just put Time Cube on the same scale as a random religion of your choice? I think they got you, man. Maurog 07:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Prgrmr@wrk, if you actually analyse the CubicAO Time Cube Proof to which I linked, you will see that it is 100% rationally valid and correct: therefore, it is indeed a rational proof. Moreover, its premises are all indisputable, meaning that all of its conclusions are likewise true. We are thus led to the conclusion that Time Cube is irrefutably proven to be the absolute truth of this 4-corner universe.

Timecube is wrong on two counts. The first is that it asserts that there are special points in spacetime ("When the Sun shines upon Earth, 2 - major Time points are created on opposite sides of Earth - known as Midday and Midnight. Where the 2 major Time forces join, synergy creates 2 new minor Time points we recognize as Sunup and Sundown."), which there are not. Points in spactime are only special based on the events that go on there (hence the reason there is no center or edge of the universe). Another flaw is that it seems to imply that time is absolute, which it isn't. Two events that seem simultaneous to one observer may can happen at totally and completely different times according to another observer, and both are equally right. Popisfizzy 21:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I just realized a contradiction between the ideas of Gene Ray and your so-called proof. Right on the image that you first see on the page, it says "Singularity is a damnable lie" (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8b/Timegrab.png), yet Case 1 of your proof requires singularities to be true and exist ("A singularity, or single point, is a zero point.", http://www.cubicao.tk/proof.html). Before spouting your proofs, you should make sure that the ideas don't contradict eachother. Popisfizzy 20:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it refers to a null, as in the boolean FALSE flag. You can't argue that they exist, and they are needed (without the FALSE, there is no TRUE), and yet you can hardly call them true. A bunch of damnable lies, all of them, if you define a lie as the opposite of true. There should be a center of the universe as well if you support the Big Bang theory, but you probably need to be outside the universe to be able to measure the exact point it expands from. And time *is* absolute. It passes at constant rate at all points in space, and any inconsistencies you may find are flaws in observation. Maurog 06:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No, time isn't absolute. Time will pass at different rates depending on a few things. First off, if you're in an area of higher gravity, time will pass slower for you. As well, the faster you travel relative to the speed of light, the slower time will pass (this is indirectly related to the higher gravity I pointed out previously). It's called time dialation, and is a required facet of Einstein's theory of relativity. It has been shown to occur in multiple experiments, three of which I know.

First, an unstable elementary particle (muon, I think, though don't quote me on this) is accellerated to near the speed of light, and its lifespan is tested against a muon not in motion. Relative to the individuals conducting the experiment, the muon not in motion decays first.

A second experiment was done where two extremely sensitive clocks were set equal to eachother, and then one was placed on a plane travelling around the world at high altitudes. When the plane landed, the clocks were compared, and more time passed for the clock on the ground than the clock on the plane.

The third experiment took two extremely accurate clocks, and placed one on the base of a water tower, I think (once again, don't quote me on the water power part), and one at the top. They were measured later, and the time for the one at the base passed slower than the one at the top.

What TimeCubeGuy is referring to is relative simultaneity. Once again, it makes the false assumptiontion that time is absolute. Consider the following: Imagine two supernovas, a and b, and three observers, x, y, and z. X is closer to a than b, y is inbetween the two, and z is closer to y than x. According to x, a went supernova before b. According to y, they both went supernova at the same time. According to z, b went supernova before a. Since photons are how information is transferred, none of them is more correct and incorrect than the other.

Also, there is no center of the universe. Quote the article on it, "center of the universe is a misconception of the big bang. In the big bang, there is no center, and thus the universe has no center, even though common sense insists that an explosion should have a center to explode from." When things refer to relativity, you have to ignore common sense, because common sense isn't alway right. Popisfizzy 15:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, but you lost me at "area of higher gravity". As far as my feeble memory serves, gravity only applies to anything with mass, and not to areas of space by any means. Also, just because time can pass differently for individual objects under certain circumstances doesn't mean it isn't absolute. Consider this: you can move up or down an escalator, effectively arriving before or after people that you started on the same step with. Would you decidively conclude the escalator isn't moving at absolute constant speed? Maurog 07:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I implore you to read the article on general relativity. It will help you get some background on all this.

Gravity, as most people know it, wasn't entirely explained by Newton. He knew what it was, but he didn't know how it worked. That gap was filled in by Albert Einstein, who postulated that gravity is caused by the curvature of spacetime, when matter with mass interferes with it. This has recently been confirmed by an experiment by NASA. Notice how I said spacetime, and not just space. Time is actually the fourth dimension, and time and space are interlinked, hence the spacetime continuum. An object in an area of higher gravity will experience it's clock running slower. Every observer, though, measures their own clock running normally, and every observer sees every other observer's clock running slower.

This curvature of spacetime also applies to objects travelling at high velocites. I'm sure you've heard of e = mc^2. This energy is the mass-energy equation. It shows that a miniscule amount of matter equates to a high amount of energy, and vice-versa. One consequence of this equation I'm sure you've heard of a nuclear weapons. As an object's energy contents increases it's mass also increases, though this isn't noticeable in our everyday encounters. But, when you near the speed of light, it becomes noticeable. As your speed increases, you gain kinetic energy, which equates to an increase in mass. Therefore, spacetime curves, and you experience a slower clock, though, as before, to yourself your clock is still running at the same speed. You also measure length differently as this velocity, which is known as Lorentz contraction. Here is a video by a professor at, if I remember correctly, Berekly, discussing time dialation and length contraction (another name for Lorentz contraction).

As well, I'm using the term "relative" meaning that it's not constant for every observer. Time nor space is absolute and constant. Instead, the speed of light is constant for all observers, which is unique to all other phenomena.

Popisfizzy 19:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It's very hard to argue with that logic. You just took Einstein theory of relativity which is based on speed of light being constant and concluded just that. However, let's inverse the speed of light formula and define "the universal tic" as the amount of time it takes for light to travel one meter in vacuum. It seems that normally we travel through time at a constant timespeed of one subjective second every 300 megatics or so. If you start moving very very fast in space, you will move slower through time, meaning it will take more megatics for you to move one subjective second in time. Is that a plausible enough absolute time definition? Maurog 09:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I really don't get what you're trying to say here. Is it something along the lines that all observers will observer the same amount of time, even if it goes faster or slower at some point in time? That isn't the case. Time does travel slower the higher the gravitational feild you're in or the faster your go. Your clock will run at a different speed, and you'll experience a different amount of time. As I said, this has all been verifed empirically. The speed of light has been shown to be the same for all observers as well. If the speed of light is the same for all observers, then it has to be length and and time that are changing. There's no denying that it happens, unless you want to battle a large amount of information.

Time isn't absolute. It's hard to wrap your head around, but it does occur, and has been shown to occur. It has essentially no effect on the everday human experience, though, because we don't live in a high enough gravitational feild, nor do we normally travel fast enough to experience it. Even if you travel around the world in a plane for 100 years (so you're in a lower gravitational field), the amount of time change would only be a few millionths (or maybe billionths; I don't remember exactly) of a second. As the experiment I mentioned involving muons shows, though, it definitely becomes noticeable when you're travelling at the speed of light.

Popisfizzy 20:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Popisfizzy, yes the Earth's opposite corners (sunrise, midday, sunset, midnight) ARE special, in that they are separate and distinct. In saying that they are not special, you are actually saying that they are indistinguishable from one another, therefore that they are one and the same and that they have collapsed into a self-destructive annihilative singularity. You are saying that Earth doesn't exist.

And I find that Maurog is correct. The computer-programming concept of a "null" or "void" is precisely suited to describing the "singularity". Popisfizzy, if you had quoted the second sentence from Case 1 of the Cubic Proof, you would have seen that that sentence read: "It [the singularity] represents nonexistence." We see that the singularity or "zero point" actually doesn't exist, and that antipodal Cubic opposites are required for existence.

Maurog is also correct in saying that time IS absolute. Popisfizzy, the distortions to which you refer are merely variations on the absolute reference-frame, specifically relativistic variations in linear space and linear time. See article Time is Cubic, not linear. An analogy is that an object will form upon your eyes' retinas images of different sizes depending on your distance therefrom--but whereas I would correctly say that the object retains its absolute, unchanging length, you would incorrectly say that its length varies depending on the observer's vantage point.

I will further substantiate the idea of an absolute reference frame by announcing that halfway between lightspeed left and lightspeed right, there is an absolute zero velocity. Any object that possesses that absolute zero velocity is truly at rest, regardless of illusory distortions caused by reference frame perceptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Time Cube Guy (talk • contribs)

First off, that article says that the speed of light is the maximum speed. That's wrong. Though matter with mass can't travel at or faster than the speed of light, light itself can be accellerated beyond the speed of light. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#.22Faster-than-light.22_observations_and_experiments

Saying that a theory that has such far reaching consequences as relativity is wrong, and the backing up your theory by saying an aspect is wrong, but not demonstrating how, is no way to further your theory. Relativity is pretty much here to stay, unless you can provide evidence that your theory is right and his isn't. Timecube isn't a tautology, so the burden of evidence is on you. Right now you're a 12 pound child trying to beat down a 300 pound sumo wrestler.

Also, you aren't demonstrating relativity correctly. If I look at a ruler from ten inches away and then look at it from ten feet away, it's still twelve inches across. But, as you travel near the speed of light, its length changes. This is length contraction, or Lorentz contraction, whichever you prefer, which is another essential aspect of relativity.

Finally, that "evidence" of absolute frame of reference is incorrect. It's remaining in zero motion only relative to the particles moving at the speed of light, and that requires you measure only these two particles relative to these particles, and not the rest of the universe. The left-moving particle observes the particle moving away extremely fast (I'm not sure that it would see it moving away at the speed of light or not. When particles are moving at exactly the speed of light, things are a bit different). The left moving particle would also see the right-moving particle moving away at the speed of light. Vice-versa for the right-moving particle. The middle object observes both the left-moving particle and right-moving particle moving away at the speed of light. Relative to other objects in the universe, though, the object is still moving.

I'm not saying they don't exist. I'm just saying that you say the time there is special, even though there's not any event at these "corners" that make it special in any sort of way. They only become special when something happens there that makes that point in spacetime special.

As I said previously, Timecube isn't a self-evident truth, so the burden of evidence is on the timecubists to show their theory is right. Thus far, I don't see any sort of proof of this. Popisfizzy 15:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Dave-ros, the Flying Spaghetti Monster that you mentioned actually contravenes Occam's Razor. There is no proof in support of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and it is an entirely redundant, unnecessary and superfluous concept, therefore it should not be considered to be true. There are probably grounds on which it can be disproven, also, such as the physical impossibility of large quantities of spaghetti without a designated propulsion system maintaining the force of "lift" by which to fly steadily through the air. In summary, it is reasonable to conclude that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is nonexistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Time Cube Guy (talk • contribs)

Time Cube Guy, Time Cube contravenes Occam's Razor. There is no proof in support of the Time Cube "theory" (other than a lot of ranting from Gene Ray and spurious discussion from yourself), and it is an entirely redundant, unnecessary and superfluous concept, therefore it should not be considered to be science. There are probably grounds on which it can be disproven, such as the fact that Gene Ray is clearly deranged (just look at his layouts and fonts). In summary, it is reasonable to conclude that Time Cube is a load of cobblers.

"One-corner maths" works, therefore there is no need for "four-corner maths", other than some insane idea of morality. We use one-corner maths, but the poles don't suddenly meet and turn the Earth into a disc! The Universe isn't four-cornered, it's infinite-cornered. And for the love of God (who you don't believe exists), sign your posts!

Oh boy, I think I'm gonna take this page off my Watchlist... I'm just glad Something Awful brought back the "Learning Triangle" page ;-) Dave-ros 19:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"There are probably grounds on which it can be disproven, such as the fact that Gene Ray is clearly deranged (just look at his layouts and fonts). " That was pretty much an ad-homien attack. Tranqulizer 08:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ad hominem attack, you meant to write. Fair enough, but so is saying that all teachers who deny Time Cube (i.e. don't teach it) are stupid and evil, and are murdering children with their Word Masturbations, or whatever unfounded claims he's written this week! Dave-ros 14:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

But, it is invisible. Most invisible things are capable of flight. In fact, claiming that an invisible thing you never encountered is *incapable* of flight would be a direct violation of Occam's Razor, which deals with probablities. Since there are way more invisible things that fly (or travel through the air unhindered) than those which don't, it makes perfect sense for the FSM to fly. Maurog 06:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup, Wonder Woman's Jet is flying and invisible. Invisible things can fly. Invisible spaghetti monsters may be able to fly. I'm staying out of the singularity thing.Markjohndaley 16:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Dave-ros, see the CubicAO Time Cube Proof. Indeed Time Cube is rationally proven, as is on that linked page made clear. Furthermore, it is exclusive, and no other theory can claim equal status to it. Thus, there is no grounds on which Occam's Razor could possibly reject Time Cube.

And indeed, "Tranqulizer" astutely observed that Dave-ros had made an "ad hominem" attack. In that he ignored the message but criticised the messenger's style as a means to illegitimately discredit the message, it was an "ad hominem" logical fallacy. (Such "ad hominem" logical fallacies have been used many times against Time Cube, frequently here on Wikipedia; people have anti-Cubic prejudices, and logical fallacies are the means by which they express their prejudices.)

You say that one-corner maths works. In fact, it DOESN'T work for representing the theory of everything and the full complete universal truth; only Time Cube works for that purpose. I guess when you say one-corner maths works, you mean that it successfully serves the purpose of destroying nature, inflicting Cubeless cannibalism and nuclear holocaust, and raping and eating young babies.

Maurog, no I doubt your logic. How is it that the quality of "invisibility" entails the quality of "flight"? I find that it does not entail that quality. Indeed, since spaghetti is visible, it would be impossible for it to be invisible; thus, an invisible "flying spaghetti monster" would be impossible.

Anyway, I suggest that everyone click their way to TimeCube.com to examine Dr Ray's latest updates and the genius scriptures contained therein. We should all accept Time Cube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Time Cube Guy (talk • contribs)

In all my experience with invisible objects, gravity has no noticeable affect (seeing as how they're all at the quantum level, where gravity doesn't have any noticeable affect). Do you have evidence against this?

Also: -1 * -1 = 1 --> -1 * -1 = -(-1) - (-1) = 1 * 1 = 1

This can be expanded elsewhere: -2 * -3 = -(-2) - (-2) - (-2) = 2 + 2 + 2 = 6

If Gene Ray doesn't get this simple concept, he should probably got back to the sixth grade. Popisfizzy 15:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is starting to get a bit long and off-topic. Talk pages are only for discussion of the article they're associated with, not the topic of the article in general, is any of this actually related to changes that anyone's planning to make to the article itself? If not it would be best to take it to some external forum. Bryan Derksen 14:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but as far as I can tell this discussion is continuing to ramble on completely off the topic of improving the article. This is not the place to be speculating on the intricacies of Time Cube "theory" itself. Please discontinue it or take it to an off-Wikipedia forum, this talk page is cluttered enough as it is. Bryan Derksen 01:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding scientific status of Time Cube

I see that time cube guy has problems with time cube being discribed as non-scientific. Would you please explain why? if it was true that time cube is based on a scientific methodology, then gene ray would be inconsistent since he states that scientists are stupid and evil. I am pretty sure gene ray him self would oppose his theory being labeled as anything resembling science. Tranqulizer 12:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently a recent update on timecube.com has assured that Gene Ray wants his theory to be regarded as scientific. So I suppose I have to retract it. Never the less I thought that it was a decent compromise to weather time cube is a theory or not. I suppose we will just have to live with the constant revert war over it. I honestly have no idea why Gene ray or "cubics" would have anything against being labled as non scientific since they hate the academics so much who have defined science in the first place, for apparently viewing the world in a fundametally flawed way. Tranqulizer 15:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitism and homophobia

Shouldn't we have some mention of the gross antisemitism and homophobia which pervades his screed? 75.35.79.57 07:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)