Talk:Time Cube

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Internet culture (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Former featured article candidate Time Cube is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
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. 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.

Hinduism and Alternative Rhetorical Methods, not Schizophrenia[edit]

Is there any research out there which can be incorporated into this article, which contains experts in Eastern Religions and Rhetorical styles analyzing Gene Ray's writings. I am a scholar of different religions and rhetorical styles and a lot of what people call rambling and inane about Ray's work could be understood as being in imitation of works that he's read. It's been years now since I read and analyzed his work, and researched about him, but what I was getting out of my readings was that he had read various ancient and modern things of Western and non-Western traditions, and had put them together. I wouldn't be surprized, though, if all you get is ignorant mockery of this man's seemingly odd and disorganized writings.

It's also worth tracking down in the literature that he changed his website quite often. I was looking through the Wayback Machine documentations and every time I visited the site, it was different.

Also, maybe this page could be linked up to "Primitive Art" or its nearest religious movement. Just some thoughts.

Dwarfkingdom (talk) 07:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

What's a time cube?[edit]

Can anyone sum up in plain English what he is trying to get at? From the excerpt on the page it just sounds like he is describing time-zones and perhaps doesn't understand that we have 24 of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I tried checking out the pages; a lot of it seems to be about how teachers are evil and that no person is qualified to teach because no one is capable of knowing anything (except for himself, who he says is wiser than all humans and gods). From what I've gathered about his "theory" is that four people on different parts of the world would all experience a twenty-four hour day, and so therefore four take place in a single rotation. He indeed seems to have forgotten the concept of timezones, and the fact that its a manmade concept. My simplification is not fully-reliable; the text is so big that I can't read that much on my screen.-- OsirisV (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I believe Darren MacLennan described Time Cube best: "An endless hideous rant that's written in a language that's indistinguishable from English but which is not English." Herr Gruber (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Arguably there are infinite number of Timezones as each Meridian have one. There are slightly more then 24 actually used as there are also shifted not only by whole hour but by halfs and qurters as well (not mentioning UTC+12:45/+13/+14). As far as I understend the concept the points move with relation to earth (denoting where there is midnight/noon/6am/6pm in Solar time) - but I fail to understand as well why there are 4 days or why it would be important. Uzytkownik (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
This is not supposed to be forum for discussing the concept (as opposed to the article), but what the heck. I think to make any sense of what he's trying to say, you have to get into a different mindset -- a mindset, incidentally, which would probably be the majority mindset if you consider all people in all history.
Consider the following statement: "People in Australia are upside down" (or, what is really meant, "People in Australia are upside down compared to us"). This is both true and not true. They're oriented "rightside up" in in respect to their gravitational field, but it is true that they are actually physically upside down in respect to us -- their feet are closer to us than their heads (and vice versa). This is a difficult concept. It's both true and not true and that's hard. People have a similar difficulty with relativity, which in way this statement is an example of some of the (seeming) paradoxes of relativity, on a mundane level.
Similarly the statement "It's midday here, but for some people it's the middle of the dark night right now". If you plucked a random person from human history -- and note that'd she'd likely be illiterate and had never been more than a few miles from home, unless a nomad -- they'd think that's nonsensical. And in a way, it is both true and not true, depending on what is understood by "right now". It's true in in the modern scientific sense, but another way to take "right now" (which our random person maybe would) is "now, in midday, with the sun high", so in that sense you're telling here "now is not now everywhere", in other words that other people have slipped backwards (or forwards) in time compared to her. That's a hard concept. Time itself is a tricky concept (and may not actually exist -- see Time, which is a lot more complicated article than you might expect). So which is true: "Other people have have different sunlight conditions right now" or "other people are twelve hours behind me in time"? Which is true is largely a matter of semantics I guess.
I guess this is what Ray is trying to get across, that other people are actually in a different time than you, and since it's a different time it's not the same day as yours -- it's not your day twelve hours earlier or later, but a different day. I guess; it's hard to tell, he's not very clear, and I don't know where the "cubic" part fits in but that's his way of expressing it I guess. In another time and place he'd maybe have been stoned as a heretic -- but he would've been more right than the stoners. I'm not saying that he's right or that it makes any sense, that's just my guess on where he's coming from. Herostratus (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

His theory is based on another theory that we can actually measure the time, but we can't actually measure the time with devices that are affected by time. 24 hour a day is a theory that helps us maintain our schedule, not measure the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

not a racist comment[edit]

Could someone please edit out the part in this article that refers to this person having subtle "racist" ideologies. The comments in question are ideologies which are NOT racist. And are actually in fact - facts. As follows: Racial integration DOES in fact destroy all the races. ie, When various races of humans inter-breed, then the eventual outcome of mixed racial inter-breeding is the loss of racial distinction - which is the comment "destroys all the races". Personally, and I think many will agree, that the destruction (could also be called extinction)of unique races is a bad thing to happen. These comments cannot be referred to as "racist". Please look up the definition of "racist". If someone more professional can edit the main article properly, thanks, if not, I will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

That part seems properly sourced. What we think about this is of no importance. - DVdm (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like you're just discovering that you're racist, dude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, there is the question of standing. The quote is from a student newspaper, and of a C-list university at that. These are not usually considered to be especially well edited and fact-checked, particularly reliable or, more importantly in this case, notable. Who cares what some teenager at East Jesus University has to say even if he is taking Journalism 101, and why does that have particularly any more standing than my Uncle Dwight's personal blog or whatever.
On the hand, you're not going to get the New York Times to comment on Time Cube, so you got to go with what you got. And there's no question that it's true that Gene Ray rants a lot and some of his rants come off as racist.
Ill give a go through it next week or so when I feel like I have the psychological patience and nerves to read it again though the line "but instead worship a queer jew" doesn't set a very non-racist tone though there is more. Keep in mind he has written about the time cube on at least five different websites where the time-cube site is simply the most predominant.
On the other hand, on the actual merits of the question of whether Time Cube is racist, it's complicated. I would point out if the people had followed Time Cube from the get-go, there would have been no European invasion of America or slave trade, since both of those moved races away from their designated quadrants, which is contrary to Time Cube ideology. It seems a little odd to describe leaving the Native Americans and inhabitants of Africa alone in peace as "racist"... So it's questionable whether you want a student in Maine to be the one to decide how we want to present on this issue. Herostratus (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
One would have to give the most extremely generous good faith reading of timecube to not read full out racism and homophobia in his various claims. Do you know of a source which explains why the very racist seeming lines aren't racist or homophobic? Shabidoo | Talk 12:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, I'll take your word for it. I'm not that familiar with the site... from what I have seen, the "endless blather" characterization seems like it could be justifiable (not saying it is or isn't, just that I can see where someone might say that)... I haven't seen much racist stuff, and there's no examples in the article (just a quote asserting that it's racist) and the website right now (as far as I could stand to read) doesn't seem to have that, and what I have seen seems segregationist without being supremacist for any race, which in the United States essentially 100% of segregationists (almost always white people, but there are a few black-nationalist segregationists or used to be) are also racial supremacists for their race. But Ray is (maybe) coming from a totally different place, where the races should stay (or should have stayted, or should return to) their designated quadrant of the earth ("cubic section" or whatever), is all. That's not racist because its not, even disingenuously, valorizing any race over another. But if you say he rants racist stuff, OK. Herostratus (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Screwing myself up to go deeper -- I do see the homophobia (I guess... not sure how to parse statements like "Vilify teachers - for Queers swindle Tithe from 1 Day Retarded", but I don't think "Queers" is complimentary here) but I didn't see any racism. Herostratus (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Ill give a go through it next week or so when I feel like I have the psychological patience and nerves to read it again though the line "but instead worship a queer jew" or the line "All past Great Civilizations have been, destroyed by minorities, so welcome to, BLACK America " or "I know now why the Jews deserved their holocaust" are already racist (especially the last one) and there is more. Keep in mind he has written about the time cube on at least five different websites where the time-cube site is simply the most predominant.

$1,000? $10,000? What's the difference? Just one little zero. And what's a zero? Nothing![edit]

"Ray has wagered $1,000 to anyone who can prove his theories wrong." followed by "He repeated his $10,000 offer" seems somehow off... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 10:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Your ignorance of Harmonic Cube is demonic. I fixed it anyway, though, for the benefit of readers who were educated stupid. Herostratus (talk) 11:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Recommend deletion of article[edit]

If any evidence were needed for the sad state of Wikipedia, this article is it. (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

We usually give reasons for deleting articles rather than snark. Shabidoo | Talk 20:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

How about this, then? As some skeptic podcasts have said, this website lies beyond the pale of rigorous criticism because it's obviously the product of a disturbed mind, and mental illness is neither funny nor is its logic open to serious analysis. (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The reason you gave is not a valid reason to delete the article. Mein Kampf was written by a man with a disturbed mind and yet we still have an enormous article on it...and several strange books written by minor figures have also garnered notable attention and have articles. Just because it is a confusing (if not meaningless rant) book not worthy of academic study...doesn't mean it is not a notable subject for an article. Try to quote an actual policy rather than personal distaste. Shabidoo | Talk 00:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)