Talk:Greenwich Mean Time/Time Cube

Time Cube

For the reasons below, a link to Time Cube should be added to this article:

• Critics of GMT argue that the assignment of only 1 day to the Earth's rotation, with a 24-hour difference occurring at the International Date Line, is an erroneous conceptualisation. In particular, Time Cube shows that there are in fact 4 simultaneous days in a single rotation of Earth.

• Earth has 4 corners (4 90-degree corners sum to 360 = 1 rotation) and in 1 rotation each corner rotates through all 4 quadrants, summing to 16, or 4-by-4. Disprove or accept.

• Time Cube is a legitimate and well-known criticism of GMT.

...And here are the counter-arguments given by the 6 people who have so far reverted the addition of this link:

• nonsense

Well obviously this isn't an actual argument, and I think that perhaps if these people actually had justification for their actions, they would have stated it; so I can only assume that these reversions were in fact unjustified. We can but conclude that these people are rational free thinkers who despise the negative effects of Academic conservatism and dogma, and who are highly tolerant of alternative ways of scientific thinking, even those that are somewhat politically incorrect or contradict accepted knowledge. Surely they'd have sided with Galileo had Wikipedia existed in the 17th century, eh?

• "They all laughed at Christopher Columbus, when he said the earth is round...They all laughed when Edison recorded sound"... but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. No one looking up latitude and longitude needs a link to Flat Earth, and no one looking up GMT needs a link to Time Cube. -- Nunh-huh 01:54, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • But whereas Flat Earth is easily disproved, no human on Earth has ever been able to refute the evidence supporting Time Cube, nor cite evidence disproving it. And in fact if you were able to do this, then I'm sure you would have, so the fact that you didn't indicts you as a pedantic fraud, and exposes what you wrote as mere unsubstantiated assertions.
    • Actually, I'd classify it more as ridicule. -- Nunh-huh 03:38, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • So why are you ridiculing Time Cube, Nunh-huh? Are you able to disprove it, or is it that you have been brainwashed to have a closed-minded religious zealot mentality towards anything that contradicts what you've been taught?
        • [1] because it would be unpleasant and not useful to fight over a theory that convinces one and only one earthling that it is correct, and [2] to attempt to get you to see that you ought not use WIkipedia as a site for promoting that theory. You already have a very nice article here devoted to it, it doesn't have to spread to other articles. Take the hint. Live, Laugh, Love. Enjoy other things. -- Nunh-huh 09:24, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
          • [1] I'm not Gene Ray, and several centuries ago most people believed the Flat Earth theory that you laugh at today, even though they could not disprove Galileo's heliocentric theory; and [2] there won't be much "living, laughing and loving" happening in the future if Cubeless Academia continues to plunder Nature, create nuclear and other toxic pollution, and build deadly nukes. Only through Time Cube can humanity overcome its Word-enslavement, mutate the WordVirus to a Cubic-compliant state, and create a stable non-pyramiding coexistence, thus enabling perpetuation and evolution into the Future. Heed well the Cubic prophecies of Dr. Gene Ray, the Greatest Thinker and Wisest Human to ever live on Earth.

• Oh God...Listening to this nonsense makes me rethink whether we really need Time Cube in the first place. Yeah, it's not an argument, but I'm not going to revert any more anyway. I'll let others take care of it. Anthony DiPierro 01:57, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Well of course it's not an argument, but then what is it? The answer is Academic brainwashing. You are repeating "nonsense" over and over in order to brainwash yourself and others into thinking that Time Cube actually is nonsense, thus immunising yourself against the possibility of coming to an understanding of something that is quite possibly not nonsense and is actually the Truth.

Further evidence of hivemind groupthink is found in your statement that you will let others take care of Cube-suppressing reversion. You aren't so keen on letting others decide for themselves whether or not Time Cube is nonsense on the sole basis of actual evidence, are you? The typical Wikipedian, upon noticing that an anon's edits have been reverted by users with whom they're familiar and that the edit at the top of the list is by the anon, may well join in the reversion without proper consideration of whether or not the anon's edit was justified; and the peer pressure may cause them to revert the anon's additions whereas otherwise they would have modified them to reach a compromise. Thus the content control on Wikipedia becomes more of a political game than an objective exercise of intellectual discernment.

GMT is based on the definition of one day being the time which the earth needs for one revolution, which in turn is defined to be 24 hours. So GMT is not connected with Time Cube. Therefore deleting this link... --Palapala 19:48, 2004 Mar 17 (UTC)

Flat Earth is based on the definition of the Earth being flat, but the Flat Earth article does nonetheless include criticism and content related to the superior spherical-earth theory. So based on that, I think it is appropriate to include in this article criticism of GMT and a reference to the superior Time Cube theory. (If you think Time Cube isn't superior then maybe you could enlighten me with some good reasons why that might be the case.) 211.28.76.57

This whole "time cube" nonsense makes a mockery of what should be a good, sensible, encyclopedic article. The world is a spere, there are no 'corners' to time, and at any one point in reality (as observed from an independent point) there are 24(-26) particular hours in existence in the world at that instant. Anything else does not deserve to be listed on here. -- VampWillow 18:06, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Time Cube Vandal

Okay so the Time Cube proponent (anonymous - 211.28.*.*) keeps re-adding the paragraph above. What value does it add? (And why does the Aussie (or is this a proxy?) user insist on remaining anonymous? Please log in and sign your posts.) This article explains what GMT is. GMT is not some higher metaphysical theory. It's a convenient way to synchronize events throughout the globe. How does Time Cube propose to replace GMT? Or does it? I read the Time Cube article through and it's sketchy at best. It has no place in this article. Dave C. 03:27, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Appears to be another potentially new vandal here, who coincidentally happens to be Aussie (although this is a proxy at Swinburne Tech in Melbourne). Other IPs appear to be from the same user 136.186.1.116 (talk · contributions), 136.186.1.118 (talk · contributions), 136.186.1.119 (talk · contributions) This could be 211.28.*.*; their tactics are exactly the same: repetitive reverts, not logging in or signing posts. Dave C. 05:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How very unfair to describe Cube advocates as vandals, Dave Cohoe. What's so unjustified about including a short paragraph on opposing points of view? Would it perhaps create excessive NPOV? You need to overcome your indoctrinated Academic single-corner bias, and allow Wikipedia users to be exposed to Cubic Wisdom, even if it entails the risk of the downfall of the Cubeless Academic Empire which you so zealously support.

Additional Time Cube discussion is at User talk:Pavel Vozenilek#Time Cube.

The idea is that the sychronisation of the events creates a state of singularity. It reduces the 4-corners (proven in article Time Cube) to the concept of but a single corner. That's singularity.

The criticism has been stated in the article: "the assignment of only 1 day to the Earth's rotation, with a 24-hour difference occurring at the International Date Line, is an erroneous conceptualisation". In reality, when you cross the Date Line, do you travel back or forward 24 hours in time? No, you do not. So it's a valid criticism; even if GMT isn't religiously worshipped, it should be made clear that it's erroneous, to avoid its ubiquity as an accepted standard potentially obfuscating the true Cubic nature of the Earth's rotation.

Time Cube proposes to replace Academic singularity concepts such as GMT with Cubic wisdom, which will ultimately save Humanity from self-destruction. Until then, it will grant you understanding of the Universe's true nature, which is something much more fulfilling than Academian WordWorship.

---

Critics of GMT argue that the assignment of only 1 day to the Earth's rotation, with a 24-hour difference occurring at the International Date Line, is an erroneous conceptualisation. In particular, Time Cube shows that there are in fact 4 simultaneous days in a single rotation of Earth.

What does this have to do with GMT? The article describes how GMT is defined as a way to tell what time it is in certain countries. Are you seriously criticising that it is possible to tell the time in London? If so then I'd like to see it, if not then this has no business on this page not due to any truth or un-truth statement about time cube, but because it is totally irrelevant — KayEss | talk 11:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

KayEss, the concept of "telling the time" relates to the arbitrary construct of time zones, of which GMT is an important component. The criticism is not that people are unable to use the standard, but that the standard itself is an erroneous conceptualisation that detracts from knowledge of the Truth.

You could create a standard whereby Earth is flat and the Sun orbits it; such a standard could give people a potentially useful model of the universe. The criticism, however, would be that it's filling their minds with lies that obstruct their ability to see the universe's true nature. It's the same in this case.

The article is about the standard and the history of it. It does not link to modern geocentrism or any other irrelevant topics that people might want to shoe-horn in here. Time cube is as irrelevant to an article on GMT as it is to the articles on Central European Time, Eastern European Time or local time at my house.

GMT, being the central time zone relative to which these other times are defined, is a more important element of the overall time-zone schema. It should therefore receive greater attention with regard to potential criticism.

I notice that the time cube article itself doesn't bother to categorise itself as being concerned with time zones. Nor does any other time zone article that I can find have anything to do with time cube. Judging by all of these measures it is irrelevant to this article and therefore doesn't belong here. — KayEss | talk 10:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The content of the Time Cube article is quite clearly related to the Earth's rotation and the cycle of day and night. It's not hard to recognise how this pertains to time zones. And it is explained what GMT has to do with Time Cube: it is an erroneous model of the Earth's rotation, whereas Time Cube proves that in Truth, there are 4 simultaneous days in 1 rotation of Earth. "Critics of GMT argue that the assignment of only 1 day to the Earth's rotation, with a 24-hour difference occurring at the International Date Line, is an erroneous conceptualisation. In particular, Time Cube shows that there are in fact 4 simultaneous days in a single rotation of Earth."

Look on history of the person adding this stuff. There's no hope to convince him, short of blocking. Pavel Vozenilek 17:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No hope of convincing me of allowing POV vandalisms such as your deletions, no. When will you agree to allow fair representation of POV's other than your own pedantic one?

The NPOV policy is not there in order to force every topic into every article. If you were to log in such that your contributions could be taken as a whole then we would have more respect for your thoughts on POV/NPOV. As it is you show no knowledge of application of the NPOV policy, at least on this article. — KayEss | talk 10:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You show no knowledge of the fact that an "ad hominem" attack such as the above is a fallacy. Or maybe no knowledge that such attacks aren't going to trick anyone. Focus on the NPOV issue at hand, instead of trying to obfuscate it with misleading generalisations.

LOL. You are funny. As I say, NPOV is not an excuse to plow every subject into every concievable article. It should be clear by now that the consensus is that time cube is irrelevant to GMT. If you can show reason that it should be here, but not in other time zone related articles (there is a helpful category if you need help) then you might convince us that you have a case. To choose an arbitrary time zone article for your attack won't convince anyone. Your assertion that GMT is the most 'important' time zone is clearly bunkum when the article on time zones clearly shows more relevance. The time cube article doesn't even mention time zones in any case. I suggest that you start of by editing the time cube article to show how it relates to time zones. If you can do that then that may help you to show relevance in this article, but you'd have to also show why it was relevant here and not on, for example, the time zone or UTC articles. You have much work to do before you can prove relevance here and until such time myself and others will continue to remove any irrelevant additions be they about time cube or anything else — KayEss | talk 09:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're right, the criticism also belongs in the Time Zone article, and also in the Coordinated Universal Time article (similar content to GMT). I have edited those articles to include the criticism.

Evertype's brief foray into this madness

In my opinion, having looked at this article, the Time Cube article, and arguments here and there, it is clear that the "Time Cube" material is kookery, and does not belong on the GMT page. The anonymous user's constant re-insertions of this material are, indeed, vandalism. Evertype 09:04, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

For the record, Mr Time Cube Vandal, when I deleted the bollocks it was with reference to what I had said here. The "Time Cube" material is kookery. It is not science, it is not serious, and "the critics of GMT" are kooks. "There are four simultaneous days in a single rotation of the earth"? What nonsense. Why not a Time Dodecahedron? The "Time Cube" is a silly, unscientific theory and there is no reason serious and useful articles like GMT should have to refer to it. Evertype 13:23, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

"Kookery", "kooks" -- pejorative POV, not valid justification. "It is not science, it is not serious", "The "Time Cube" is a silly, unscientific theory" -- mere POV assertions, not reasoning. See "4/16 Rotation Principle" in Time Cube for proof of 4 simultaneous days. What proof have you Time Dodecahedron worshippers for your baseless religious beliefs? (Note, however, that the geometric construct of the Dodecahedron is derivable from the Cube, using the perspective of a diagonal through the Cube's centre. Refer to the geometric figure known as "Metatron's Cube".)

Although I didn't make the edit, I thought the TC vandal would understand Evertype's rv comment. Recommend 211.28.*.* read this link.  :) -- Dave C. 01:41, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I thought the Academian vandal Dave Cohoe would have understood that although I did understand Evertype's comment, I disagreed with it. My anti-Academian viewpoint, I have clearly justified above.

I think "kookery" is pretty specific and accurate really: See Crank (person). Now, then: "If the 4 racial components of 2 sex pole hemispheres agreed to a cubing of the sphere as a spiritual unity, heavenly music of cubed sphere could be audible on Earth simultaneously to every human ear, not discord, but harmony." And "The four corners of a person's head are the face, two ears, and back of the head". You call this "science" and make fun of "us" who are "Academians"? Right-o. Evertype 22:34, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

Evertype, I now recognise that you are correct in your reasoning that because you made fun of a couple of Dr Ray's statements, the Time Cube theory must be completely false. However, do you suppose you could further confirm this conclusion by stating the undoubtedly obvious refutation of the 4/16 Rotation Principle proof (see "4/16 Rotation Principle" section in Time Cube, and 4/16 Rotation Principle CubicAO article)? You may also wish to see Cubiform and Pyramidal Lifeforms article for explanation of 4-corner head.

You are an anonymous troll, and I am not going to discuss this matter further with you, as feeding trolls is boring. If you wish to believe that trees have "corners" and if you wish to believe in "the supremacy of four" go right ahead. It has nothing to do with Greenwich Mean Time. The "4/16 rotation principle" is specious gobbledegook, and the four-corner square is arbitrarily sited on the equator anyway. "The unique harmonicity [not a word] of the 4-corner quadrant division proves the supremacy [sic] of the number four." Bollocks. Frankly I think the Time Cube article itself should be deleted from the Wikipedia as patent nonsense. Evertype 10:43, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)

"You are an anonymous troll" -- another of the typical ad hominem attacks. "It has nothing to do with Greenwich Mean Time" -- unsubstantiated assertion, ignoring my arguments to the contrary. "the four-corner square is arbitrarily sited on the equator " -- incorrect; it is projected between the North and South Poles to form a dilated Cube, as explained in article Cube Representation. "harmonicity" -- state of being harmonic; self-explanatory. "General and Special Relativity" -- FALSE THEORIES, according to the following argument: "Relativity is specious gobbledegook, bollocks, and patent nonsense." Haha Einstein, you lose.

Further to the above, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time Cube (3rd nomination) Evertype 10:58, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)

Don't just see it; vote Keep on it! Allow the Cubic Truth to gloriously prevail.

Anon vandal

OK, you're so very clever to now start to deface three articles instead of one. Your last edit stated that you'd justified the relevance of time cube to this article. Justifying relevance is not the same as adding your text to two other articles as well. There is an important difference. I'm going to split this into two parts - the first assumes that you are a reasonable person and the second doesn't:

I'm sorry; you stated that it would be inconsistent to add the content only to GMT, but not to other, equally important time-zone articles. For consistency, I'm therefore adding the content to the other articles as well. Given that it is relevant, as you should have realised by now, your defacing of all three articles does not reflect well.

You have yet to prove that relevance to the satisfaction of anybody other than yourself. — KayEss | talk 07:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. A justification for relevance requires a reasoned statement that is then agreed by the rest of the community. Although you claimed that you had provided such a reason your restatement of your policy is not a reasoned argument for relevance. The normal form for this would be something like Time cube is relevant to this article due to the following statements that it makes about timezones in general and the current time zone systems in particular:...(you fill in your reasons here). As the time cube article still fails to provide for any reasoning that it disagrees with having time zones in general or that it has evidence that the current system doesn't work then our only conclusion can be that you are making this up. If you are able to show a clear reason that time cube is necessarily relevant to these articles then we will help you to edit the pages rather then fight you.

The current time zone system postulates only 1 day (24 hours) in one rotation of Earth. Time Cube, also pertaining to Earth's rotation, proves, however, that there are 4 simultaneous days in one Earth rotation; it thus refutes the GMT/UTC model, and is therefore relevant to GMT/UTC articles. (See "4/16 Rotation Principle" in Time Cube for 4-day proof.) We should also include the more general criticism of the instantaneous 24-hour difference at the date line, and 1-hour differences at the other divisions.

This does not constitute a display of relevance. Everybody knows that the time zone system is a compromise between a useable time system and every location on the planet having its own local time. The number of days that you believe to be in existance on the earth is simply not relevant to the time zone articles. You repeatedly fail to show this relevance to any other than your own satisfaction. — KayEss | talk 07:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It also compromises being able to circumnavigate the Earth without instantaneously jumping forward or back 24 hours at any point. And, if "everyone knows" that the system involves a compromise, then it is certainly encyclopaedic to describe the compromise within the articles.

Again, see the section "4/16 Rotation Principle" in the Time Cube article for proof of 4 simultaneous days. Where is your refutation of this proof? The accepted Time zone designation dictates that one rotation of Earth includes only 24 hours, or one day. Time zones have one day in one rotation of Earth, but Time Cube proves four days in one rotation of Earth.

Let's make this very clear:

• GMT/UTC/Time Zone postulate 1 DAY in a single rotation of Earth
• Time Cube proves that there are 4 DAYS simultaneously in a single rotation of Earth

Are you seeing the connection yet?

The time zone system says no such thing. It says that local time within a certain geographic area is close enough that it can be considered (for most purposes) the same. You seem to be disputing that an observer at Greenwich would see one day per 24 hours. I guess another thing that you may be claiming is that a day cannot be defined by the time it takes the sun to reach the same position in the sky (approx 24 hours for most of the planet), or the amount of time it takes for the earth to make a single rotation (approx 24 hours for the whole planet). If you were to redefine 'day' in some other way then you can 'prove' anything you like, but most people would understand that it was a disingenuous argument. Unless you can show that there would be an observable difference in how the time zone system would have to be set up you aren't going to proove relevance.

The Time Zone system, essentially, has 24 divisions across the entire longitude of the Earth. Each division is 1 hour, meaning that in total there are 24 hours, or 1 day. I'm not saying that an observer at Greenwich would experience 4 days himself; rather, that considering the Earth's entire longitudinal scope, 4 days are evident in a single rotation of Earth. I am defining a "day" as "the cycle of light and dark experienced by an observer in one Earth rotation". Again, see "4/16 Rotation Principle" section in Time Cube; and for extra information, see 4/16 Rotation Principle CubicAO article.

I’ll make it simple for you. In order to prove that it has relevance to the time zone articles you not only need to show that there are 4 days per revolution, but also to show what effect this has on the observable outcome of the current time zone system. This means that you have to show that it is a mistake for an observer at Greenwich to count a single 24 hour day between noon and noon. I have no idea how you could do this as I can’t think of a single observation that you could make that would show four days have passed when any observer clearly sees a single day. Maybe you have such an observation, and if so please share it with the rest of us. Once you have this observation you would also have to provide a workable new system based on your time cube, but we can leave that for part two. First off, I'd like to know what your observation would be. — KayEss | talk 06:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't have to show that it's a mistake for Greenwich to experience 1 day. I have to show that the overall time zone schema may be criticised in such a way as for Time Cube to be relevant to the criticism. As such, I show that the time zone schema encompasses only 24 hours across the entire longitude, which contradicts the proven fact that there are 4 simultaneous days in one rotation of Earth. Also, not specifically pertaining to Time Cube, but a valid criticism nonetheless, we should note that the International Date Line has the ludicrous attribute of the time on one side being 24 full hours ahead or behind the time on the other side.

You are right in saying I have to show that the overall time zone schema may be criticised in such a way as for Time Cube to be relevant to the criticism. Claiming that there are four days per rotation just isn't going to cut it when any observer can see that the time zone system works perfectly well and fails to observe four days at any point on the planet over the course of 24 hours. You just simply aren't going to be able to convince anybody that there are four days per rotation. You do also suffer a mis-understanding about time zones. If you count them you will notice that there aren't 24 of them and you will also notice that they aren't always whole hour differences from GMT. Time zones are a practical solution to a practical problem and the time cube article still doesn't give any idea what you're on about on these pages. 04:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We could create a flat-earth system whereby the Sun and other planets are postulated to orbit the Earth. Several centuries ago, that system was considered to work perfectly well. But the problem is that it contradicts the actual, provable facts, and that when generally accepted amongst the populace, it engenders a state of ignorance. But I guess Galileo just simply isn't going to be able to convince anybody that the Earth is round and orbits the Sun.

There are certain time-zone subdivisions that somewhat complicate the basic 24x1-hour-division designation. But you will find that for any given latitude (excluding the poles), a total of 24 hours will be evident. Again, I direct you to the "4/16 Rotation Principle" section of the Time Cube article for the solid, and as yet unrefuted, proof of 4 simultaneous days in a single rotation of Earth.

1. This is a straightforward personal attack. You are hiding behind anonymity as you know that any account you create will get banned for vandalism. I take this to mean that you understand that you are vandalising those pages that you seek to change and are doing so out of purely selfish motives. If you believed that you were correct you would log in and argue your point rather than repeatedly vandalise the articles. I assume that you are unable to do so as you don't have the necessary wit and you continue out of an evil desire to cause others to waste their time undoing your changes. I sympathise that you are unable to enter into a proper mature discussion on this subject and I understand that you are able to read pages on ad hominem and NPOV, but reading is not the same as comprehension and so far you have shown none.

But I am arguing my point. So what if I don't have a Wikipedia account? If there's some problem with that, then create a new policy requiring people to register before editing Wikipedia. Otherwise, it's perfectly acceptable for me to edit anonymously, and you should not discriminate against me on the basis of my choice to do so.

While we are on the subject of making "ad hominem" attacks against each other, I imagine that perhaps, were I registered, persons with admin powers would want to force their closed-minded anti-Cubic biases upon others through such actions as banning me. But with their only option in this regard for the ban to include many other potential users from my ISP, they are unable to do so. I bet they must be frustrated that they're unable to empower their narrow mentality here. Maybe they would do well to broaden their horizons and think rationally, for a change?

(Your accusations of ignorance of the terms and of immaturity are obviously unsubstantiated. They are baseless "ad hominem" attacks, and do not in any way detract from my position.)

I have invited you to enter into a mature discussion on the subject rather than continue to deface the articles. There is not a single editor here that will not help you to add time cube to any relevant articles. As you are the only person who believes in its relevance to these articles you are clearly showing immaturity in your continued failure to enter into discussion before editing articles. — KayEss | talk 07:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm entering into discussion concurrently with editing the articles. If I don't edit them, the proposed changes will not attract enough attention from other users to allow a fruitful talk-page discussion to occur. I wonder why you, the extremely mature Wikipedia user, have not waited for this discussion to conclude prior to your past reversions of the article?

PS - If you actually understood what an ad hominem attack was then you would be able to stop making yourself look even less mature. If I were to do make such an attack then I'd be sure to point it out so you can see what an ad hominem attack really looks like. You will notice that I have very carefully attacked your points and you as two seperate arguments, viz 1) time cube is irrelevant to time zone articles so needs to be removed 2) you are blatantly disregarding community policy and therefor show yourself as being at best immature and at worst an evil timewaster of other's effort. Note that each stands on its own. — KayEss | talk 07:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I quote from one of your previous posts:

"If you were to log in such that your contributions could be taken as a whole then we would have more respect for your thoughts on POV/NPOV. As it is you show no knowledge of application of the NPOV policy, at least on this article."

You are taking the criticism aimed at me, personally -- that I do not log in -- and using it to suggest that my contribution to this article lacks NPOV. You thus ignore the actual contribution and attempt to justify your unsubstantiated assertions of POV by making a personal attack. In future, you should argue against my contributions based on their inherent merits, not by attempting to associate them with irrelevant personal criticisms.

QED — KayEss | talk 06:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

QED that the quoted argument was exposed as fallacious. As I said, you should make proper arguments in future.

ROFL (the other part I'll have to deal with in the morning as I'm afraid I only have a single day per 24 hours to deal with things). In the morning I'll also explain the argument to you as you clearly fail to understand it, but for the record I am pleased that the first part of your reply does at least make some sense (at least from a debating point of view). — KayEss | talk 18:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just to help the anon guy understand what is being said I'll break the argument down for him:

1. I claim that Anon doesn't understand the NPOV policy of Wikipedia.
2. As evidence I point to Anon's bahaviour on this article and his NPOV arguments on this talk page.
3. I complain that Anon's practice of not logging in provides no further evidence either for or aginst.
4. I invite Anon to log in so that he can use the full spectrum of his edits to help bolster his claim that he does in fact understand the NPOV policy.

But the issue is not my general understanding of the NPOV policy. The issue is whether I have applied it correctly in the specific case of my contributions to the Time Zone articles. Instead of evaluating" the contributions based on their own merits, you're instead associating them with my perceived status as a Wikipedia user. Clearly, it remains an "ad" hominem" attack.

You will notice that this is a long way from any ad hominem attack. I suggest that you only use words that you understand or you will continue to look like an idiot. I know that it was complex for Anon to understand the english as I put the points in reverse order originally, but hopefully Anon can now understand what was actually said. — KayEss | talk 05:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You will note, however, that despite your patronising comments, your defense above has been refuted. Feel free to continue to defend yourself through the use of such acronyms as "LOL" and "ROFL".

WP:VIP Pavel Vozenilek 11:33, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's right, Pavel Vozenilek! That's "Vandalism in Progress"! Vandalism is what YOU'RE doing when you revert this article! Aren't you a clever boy.

I suspect that you will continue to vandalise and you will only reply to point number two above. I invite you to show me that I am wrong and to put forward a clear argument for the relevance of time cube here and elsewhere before adding it back into the pages. At the moment you are a minority of one who believes that it is relevant and it therefore behooves you as a reasoned member of society to prove your case.

— KayEss | talk 13:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Mr. Ray! The three revert rule means you can't insert the same material in an article four times within 24 hours, and that if you do, you can be banned from editing. I think it's a fair assumption that the Time Cube theory has exactly one advocate, and that you're it. So no matter what IP you use, I also think it's fair to assume that anyone who inserts Time Cube nonsense into any article is that one person. So remember: four strikes and you're out. - Nunh-huh 03:55, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Mr. Presley! I think it's a fair assumption that you are unable to justify your anti-Cubic opinions. If not, then go ahead and do so above. If, on the other hand, you would rather try to make yourself feel like a big man by blocking me, then also go ahead. So remember: one instance of thinly veiled biases and aggression and you've exposed your shallowness as a human being.

Thanks for acknowledging your warning. - Nunh-huh 04:08, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just to pitch in for consensus, I am also against including any Timecube information in articles other than Time Cube. I know better than to argue with Mr. Ray, except to state that it's not up to Wikipedia contributors to disprove his theories. Keep the nonsense out of legitimate articles. Rhobite 06:37, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Keep the round-earth heliocentric nonsense out of legitimate flat-earth articles. It's not up to Wikipedia contributors to disprove Galileo's theories. But it is, apparently, incumbent on them to make "ad hominem" attacks on proponents of alternative beliefs by baselessly questioning their identity. They know better than to attempt rational arguments in support of irrational dogma.

Protection

Should we request protection for this page? Or would that not be worth it? —Ashley Y 03:27, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)

Yes, please. This vandalism has been going on for at least a year, with the tempo stepped up recently. Thanks. -- Dave C. 04:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have protected Greenwich Mean Time, Coordinated Universal Time, and Time zone due to an edit war over the insertion of comments relating to Time Cube. I am not familiar with the dispute, but I will carefully read this talk page and Time Cube in hopes of finding an agreement. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:45, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Time Cube discussion

unattributed anon edits are by user in IP address class 211.28.xxx.xxx

For reference, below is the text in question:

Time Cube adherents believe that the use of the GMT time zone in particular is erroneous as it only allows for a single day per 24 hours and not the four that they advocate. It also postulates that crossing the International Date Line instantaneously sends one forward or back 24 hours in time. Observers at Greenwich (and throughout the time zone's coverage) using the most common definition of 'day' need to wait 96 hours before they have seen four of them; this is because they are only in one corner, whereas the 4 simultaneous days are observed through equal consideration of all 4 corners.

First, anonymous user, even if you choose not to register, could I ask you to sign your posts? You can use 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~. It makes it easier to see who is saying what.

I find that the indenting, plus the fact that posts by other users are signed, facilitates sufficiently easy discernment of the user identities. I therefore refrain from cluttering the page with useless signatures.

I read through Time Cube a few times. It is very creative, but I don't understand all of it. What exactly does it mean that "there are...4 simultaneous days in a single rotation of Earth"? — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:09, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Knowledge Seeker: firstly, I am pleased that you seem to be exercising a degree of objectivity in regard to this issue, unlike users who are blatantly prejudiced, a trait evident in Evertype from his remark below. We define "day" as "the cycle of light and dark experienced by an observer on Earth's surface in a single full Earth rotation". The section "4/16 Rotation Principle" in the Time Cube article should make it clear how 4 simultaneous days are proven; see also, 4/16 Rotation Principle CubicAO article for explanation of the proof.

There isn't anything there worth understanding. It certainly has no relevance to the article on GMT. Thanks for protecting this article from the anonymous trolling vandal. See my comments above. Evertype 10:43, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)

my views on this (natch!) ... Whilst "time cube" may or may not be of interest to people other than those promoting it (and the signing of posts just assists people in following a conversation, it doesn't hide the IP address you used) it isn't something "specifically" related to GMT. GMT is but one of the (26? 27?) timezones in use around the world, so it clearly constitutes vandalism to place it here. One of the issues/problems/attributes of a wiki system is that anyone - including blatant weirdos (and I could include myself in that in other contexts) is able to make an edit but, more importantly, they may *not* just push a POV unrelated to the content of an article that cannot be shown to have any reasonable veracity. You are entitled to your opinion; you are not entitled to express it to the detriment of Wikipedia. Frankly, anyone who felt confident in the POV they were pushing would have the honesty to state their identity aswell, but clearly that is too much to expect in this case. shame. --Vamp:Willow 14:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Article UTC states that UTC is similar to, and in a loose sense may be considered the same as, GMT. GMT is important because it is the central time zone, from which all the others are defined. The issue with using only 1 longitude as the central point is that it creates a perspective limited to but one corner. Time Cube, however, proves 4 corners to constitute the totality of rotations such as the Earth's -- see article Time Cube. Based on this, we recognise that the use of GMT is comparable to using flat-earth geocentrism instead of the true round-earth concept.

I do feel confident in the NPOV I am pushing, however I choose to express this confidence through the use of rational arguments that explain how my contributions satisfy NPOV requirements. Maybe you are in the habit of justifying your edits by providing autobiographical data, but I happen to differ. 211.28.76.226

Anon is postulating that if you put four observers on the equator say at 0W, 90W, 180W and 270W then each of these observers will experience their own day. This is an obvious and trivial result. What time cube also seems to posit is that if you spread six observers around the equator they will still experience four days. How this feat is managed is not explained - at least in any coherent manner. Time cube also claims that there are not an infinite number of divisions that can be used where each has its own local time (apparently this concept is 'evil'). Anyway, thanks for protecting the page Knowledge Seeker. — KayEss | talk 14:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

KayEss, the use of 4 is based on the unique harmonicity of the 4-corner-quadrant division, as explained in article Time Cube. If you have people located at longitudes other than the harmonic minimum 4, their days may be considered to be combinations, or mixtures, of the fundamental 4. You will need to refute the 4/16 Rotation Principle -- which, as explained in article Time Cube, proves 4 simultaneous days in a single rotation of Earth. 211.28.76.226

I'm quite aware of *what* Anon et al are suggesting, but what is going on a 0/90/180&270 is irrelevant! This is an article about GMT, and as such applies only to the timezone which runs in a band roughly 15 degrees wide, thus any of the 'time cube' (sic) discussion is irrelevant to this article. --Vamp:Willow 17:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry VampWillow, that wasn't aimed at you. It was just an answer to Knowledge Seeker's question. — KayEss | talk 02:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are welcome, Anon. I will do my best to be objective. I ask you to be patient as I try to understand. I am still trying to comprehend all this. I also would ask that you respect Wikipedia guidelines and policies. In general, revert warring is considered bad; if a number of people are reverting one's changes, then one should discuss it on the talk page, as we are doing now. I read the "4/16 Rotation Principle" section you suggested. As I understand it, people in four different areas of the earth, which Mr. Ray calls "corners", will each experience a different style of day, and this is why he says that there are four simultaneous days. But doesn't a person in one corner experience just one day? It seems to me that all the people within the GMT time zone are in the same corner, and so should experience the same day. Am I misunderstanding? Perhaps you could show me if I am reasoning this incorrectly. — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's right, the GMT zone is roughly one corner, and thus experiences only one day. However, as the basis for defining all the other time zones, it contradicts Time Cube by acting as a single, supreme longitude; a 1-corner perspective that creates the absurd contradiction of a 24-hour increment back or forth at the International Date Line. And of course, it also creates time zones that sum to only 24 hours, whereas the proven 4 simultaneous days require there to be 96 hours. The criticism section should be included in the article to inform readers of these pertinent issues. 211.28.76.226

now whilst the idea of a 96-hour day may be appealing to some people, it isn't to anyone rational in these matters who lives in the real world. DFTT applies I feel. --Vamp:Willow 13:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, rational proof of 4 simultaneous days may be found in section "4/16 Rotation Principle" of article Time Cube (assuming the pedants haven't deleted it in their attempts to suppress the Truth). Refute or Accept applies, I feel.

Anon, I have been thinking about your conjecture and I'm wondering how people tell the time on your system. Are you proposing that there are four 'time zones' each covering a quarter of the earth? I presume you can't be because that would also lead to a situation where somewhere on the planet you have a demarcation line. The theory doesn't seem to specify where these four observers are positioned (I presume that their names aren't part of the theory and neither are the positions given in the example). I can't see how this doesn't just collapse into everybody using their own local time, but I can't square that with the idea that there should be only four local times. — KayEss | talk 16:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The four corners are positioned at sunup, midday, sundown and midnight. Sunup and sundown are on the terminator line, and midday and midnight are the extremes of light and dark. The observers are positioned at these points to start with, and each one rotates through the other three space-corners, thus creating four Time Corners, which constitute 4 simultaneous days over the course of a single rotation. Add four space corenrs for each of the four time corners and 16 spacetime configurations are obtained, which is the basis of 16 in "4/16".

The four quadrants are located between the corners -- it's a 4-corner-quadrant division. The quadrants are Sunup-Midday, Midday-Sundown, Sundown-Midnight and Midnight-Sunup.

Thank you, Anon. If I understand you correctly, you are objecting to having a single timekeeping standard off of which others are based. I can understand the symmetry of Time Cube, but like KayEss above, I am unsure how this timekeeping system would be practically implemented. Where are the four corners, exactly? How do people in the corners report time. Do they use an hour/minute format like we do? Do they all report the same time in the four corners? If so, which is the corner which has noon in the middle of its day? Or does each corner have a "local" time like the time in our time zones? Also, what does it mean that time zones sum to 24 hours? Regarding the International Date Line: first, it is a 23-hour difference, I believe. You wrote: "It also postulates that crossing the International Date Line instantaneously sends one forward or back 24 hours in time." This is untrue; nobody proposes that one goes forward or backwards in time; rather, one's clock is changed by 23 hours. It is intriguing, perhaps, but I don't believe it is absurd. — Knowledge Seeker দ 17:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) (side notes: VampWillow—it probably does apply, you're right, but I still must try. KayEss—we have the same initials [sort of] — Knowledge Seeker দ 17:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC))

The corners are at Midday, Sundown, Midnight and Sunup. Gene Ray has proposed that the 4 quadrants may be further divided by 4, as depicted on his All Clock Faces are Wrong page. One who starts at Midnight has noon in the middle, for in a single rotation, they would experience midnight-sunrise-noon-sunset and back to midnight.

Basically, each time zone encompasses 1 hour and so 24 of them sum to 24 hours. There may be subdivisions and other variations, but applying this same principle you'll still get 24 hours for any given non-polar latitude. As far as I know, the IDL has a 24-hour difference, since you accumulate 24 hours of linear time going all the way around, necessitating a 24-hour difference to cancel it out. It may be that quantisation of the time-zones results in 1 hour being lost. When you change your clock by 23 hours upon crossing the IDL, you are indeed proposing that you're going forward or back 23 hours in linear time. Of course you don't really experience any time-travel, but the point is that the system is an erroneous conceptualisation. It's like if you sailed out across the ocean and your GPS unit indicated that the Earth was flat and that you had fallen off the edge.

But the four corners don't move as the earth rotates do they? Otherwise your observers would only ever see the 'corner' they start at (and would have to be moving pretty quick to keep up). So doesn't this mean that you must pick four locations, or at least lines of longitude for the observers to start at. Then you must be defining each of their time as local time, i.e. midday is when the sun is at zenith.

The four Space Corners of midday, sundown, midnight and sunup move along the surface of Earth as Earth rotates. The four observers, representing the four Time Corners, move with Earth's surface. Each experiences the 4 space corners in one full rotation. This creates 16 spacetime configurations and 4 simultaneous days.

As you don't like GMT can I propose that the observers are stationed at 15W, 105W 195W and 285W, although it doesn't really matter - define the lines wherever you want, but as you say they must be 90° apart. What does an observer at 30W see? Which corner is he on and what time does he get? For example, when it is 10am for the observer at 15W what time is it for the observer at 30W? — KayEss | talk 09:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This question, I think, simplifies to "what about someone in between the four harmonic perpendicular observers". The answer is that they experience a combination, or mixture, of two of the four simultaneous days. Four is proven to be the harmonic minimum.

I understand the names of the four corners, but where are they mapped on our planet? In which corner is London, is Paris, is New Delhi, is San Francisco? I understand that midnight is the portion of the earth where days begin closer to midnight than the other three times. How do you know when days begin? This seems to me to require a central timekeeping authority, does it not? I live in Chicago. Say I wanted to use cubic time. What corner do I live in? What cubic time is it in Chicago, at the time I sign this comment? Which part of the earth is in the Midnight corner? If days begin at, say, 0:00 UTC, then the midnight corner would be approxmately from 45W longitude to 45E longitude (depending on the time of year) correct? What does it mean that a time zone encompasses one hour? Actually, you are correct; crossing the IDL at most locations requires a 24-hour adjustment. I was erroneously recalling only a portion of the Line which runs along a time zone boundary. But no, I am not proposing that one is going forward or back in linear time. It is an inconvenience of our timekeeping system, yes, but one that is easily solved by using UTC or keeping in mind your local time. I disagree with your analogy. Perhaps it's more like sailing across the Pacific and your GPS showing your craft disappearing from one side of the map and reappearing on the other. In any case, the IDL issue can wait: I am more interested to understand the practical aspects of implementing a time cube timekeeping system. KayEss also asks some excellent questions to which I look forward to hearing the answers. — Knowledge Seeker দ 14:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The corners are at midday, sundown, midnight and sunup. The cities move through all four of the corners in a single full rotation. To claim otherwise is to claim a 1-corner, 24-hours-only perspective. For the purposes of analysis, we define a "single full rotation" as beginning and ending at arbitrary points one full rotation apart. The arbitrariness is not of concern, since no matter which points you choose, the proof still holds.

A day does not have a beginning or end. Those are linear concepts, erroneously applied to the 4-corner rotation. Claiming that days begin and end, and that the Earth only has one of them in a single rotation, leads to erroneous conceptualisations such as the 24-hour difference at the IDL.

It depends which corner, or quadrant, you are in. The corners are midday, sundown, midnight and sunup, and the quadrants midday-sundown, sundown-midnight, midnight-sunup and sunup-midday. The only "central timekeeping authority" is the Sun, located at the centre of the solar system. This combines with Earth's rotation to create a cycle of light and dark by which our lives are regulated.

No, the midnight corner is at a single longitude, and its location depends on Earth's alignment relative to the Sun's rays. The quadrants, located BETWEEN the 4 corners, are what encompass 90 degrees each.

Essentially, each time zone is offset by 1 hour from the ones adjacent to it. Each one encompasses one hour.

As I said, although it's accepted that one does not instantaneously travel 24 hours in time upon crossing the IDL, the instantaneous 24-hour clock adjustment still contradicts this. If you said "I acknowledge that the Earth is round", this would not justify you using a flat-earth model for practical applications in your everyday life.

You say that the midday corner is along the line where the sun is at zenith. OK, so the time for there is noon, 12 o'clock. This is exactly the same as local time so we all understand that. What I really wanted to know though is what time is it going to be for an observer 15° west of that position? The midday corner isn't going to arrive there for another hour so what time is it? By 'local time' it would be 11am, but I'm interested to know what the time would be from a cubic perspective? — KayEss | talk 04:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BTW - most people manage just fine using a 'flat earth' model for most of their lives. I guess that you have a map of the city that you live in. The map would not be corrected to show any curvature of the planet and is based on a 'flat earth' model. If you do navigation for a boat (for exazmple if you go sailing) then you will find that you have to make a correction for your 'flat earth' maps in order to get to where you want. Nobody proposes that the earth is flat, but most of us manage quite easily to understand which model to use and when to use it because the earth is neither flat nor a sphere. — KayEss | talk 04:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All right, I am beginning to understand. The sunrise and sunset corners are each half of the terminator. The noon and midnight corners are in between them as KayEss describes above. It is a different naming scheme but I agree. But I don't understand how this is different from our current timekeeping scheme. People in the noon corner under your scheme will also say it is noon under the current practice; same for midnight, sunrise, and sunset. I apologize for misunderstanding about days beginning and ending, but I was basing it off the edits you made to Time Cube: "The four corners of Earth are the following: the places where days start at midnight, the places where days start at sunrise, the places where days start at noon, and the places where days start at sunset" (emphasis mine). That definition does not seem compatible with the explanation that you have given above. I tried visiting Mr. Ray's web site, but it seems to mainly concern itself with declaring that everyone besides him is stupid; I had difficulty finding any actual content. However, I accept your current explanation, and understand about the four quadrants. Although it seems to me that the four corners are six hours apart, which also adds up to 24 hours. I feel you are being a bit evasive about the practical details of telling time using Time Cube, although it is probably because I was vague in my earlier question (since I was misunderstanding the corners). In Time Cube, do you report time as hours and minutes? Do you use dates with months, days, and years? Suppose I were to agree with Mr. Ray that 1-dimensional time is evil and wish to follow the dictates of Time Cube. Say I am performing a science experiment and wish to record the time in my log book—it is noon in Chicago (the sun is at its zenith). What precisely would I write in my book? The conventional method would be "12:00 p.m. (CDT), April 30, 2005". What would I write using Time Cube? How about someone 5 degrees west, who would also consider it to be noon local time, being in the same time zone, although his truly local time would be "11:40 a.m. (CDT), April 30, 2005". How about someone 15 degrees west, as KayEss asks, who would record "11:00 a.m. (CDT), April 30, 2005"? Can you give examples of using cubic time? — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:09, 30 Apr 2005

But they will not say, for instance, that Asia is several hours ahead of America. The 4 corners exist simultaneously in time. But a 1-corner system denies this, and creates a 24-hour difference as one traverses a given latitude. As Dr Ray said: "You were educated stupid about 4-season Life Cube. 4-corners are simultaneous, there is no 1, 2, or 3-corner. 4 is both macro and micro. God can't occupy 4-corners. Time Cube disproves God."

That definition was written by someone else, so I may have to edit it to clarify the concepts. To this end, it would be helpful if you not revert article Time Cube to the version vandalised by Cheradenine. The content exists on the Time Cube site; you probably need to read it more thoroughly. For instance, here is one of Dr Ray's explanations of the 4/16 Rotation Principle:

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.

The 4-equidistant Time points can be considered as Time Square imprinted upon the circle of Earth. In a single rotation of the Earth sphere, each Time corner point rotates through the other 3-corner Time points, thus creating 16 corners, 96 hours and 4-simultaneous 24 hour Days within a single rotation of Earth - equated to a Higher Order of Life Time Cube. Ignorance of the Time Cube is evil.

Those divisions are, to a degree, manmade. One would measure time in terms of one's corner-quadrant position in cycles: so for instance, cycle of day and night (days), cycle of the moon (months, approx.), and cycle of Earth's orbit (years). Anyway, the units are not so much the issue: what is the issue is the 1-corner thought-patterns reflected by GMT, and the fact that they are transcended and exposed as evil by 4-corner Cubic Truth.

As I said, it would merely be a question of recording one's position within the 4-corner-quadrant division. One would have to rectify the existing system by removing the 1-corner bias. This bias, I have identified above.

So what you're saying is that you would record your time as a position relative to one of the corners? So in the examples above you may say 'midday + 5W' or in my example 'midday + 15W'? The only problem I see with this is that your reference is moving across the planet so you'd have to say also where true midday was? Then you would record time as 'midday at Chicago + 5W' or 'midday at Chicago + 15W'? Can you please tell us what you would write down as the time? — KayEss | talk 10:31, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I said, one determines one's position within different 4/16 cycles. So you could write down your position within the day-night cycle, your position within the cycle of the moon, and your position within the cycle of Earth's orbit. That would be roughly equivalent to day-month-year, but with the evil singularity-bias (explained above) removed.

Anon, why will you not provide an example of how the Time Cube timekeeping scheme is used? Surely you use it yourself? How do Time Cubics tell time? Is KayEss's example correct? Please provide an example of how to use Time Cube. — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:57, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See above; one would note one's position within the day-night cycle, the moon cycle, and the cycle of seasons. You will need to address the contradictions I have shown to exist in the 1-corner model if you are to refute the criticism of GMT.

Note: Knowledge Seeker, not signing my comments is not an issue when I split your posts, as the indenting shows which parts are written by what user. I know I split it in the middle of a paragraph, however it would be more helpful if you could split a long post into several paragraphs in the first place, instead of writing it as a single, excessively long paragraph.

I think that I would have to take your comments then as being equivalent to 'We have no way to record time'. If you cannot write down the time for any of the examples asked then I don't understand how this can be relevant to these articles. I do think that this inability needs to be added to the time cube article though. I'll ask once more, what would you write down as the time for the examples asked? — KayEss | talk 12:37, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You write down

1. The position in the day-night cycle

• Either it's one of the corners, midday, sundown, midnight or sunup; or a position (represented, for example, as a value from zero to one) in one of the quadrants, midday-sundown, sundown-midnight, midnight-sunup, sunup-midday

2. The position in the cycle of the moon

• Either it's one of the corners, full moon, half waning moon, no moon, half waxing moon; or a position in one of the quadrants, waxing/less than half, waxing/greater than half, waning/greater than half, waning/less than half

3. The position in the cycle of Earth's orbit, which corresponds to the cycle of seasons

• Either it's one of the corners, summer solstice, autumnal equinox, winter solstice, vernal equinox; or a position in one of the quadrants, summer-autumn, autumn-winter, winter-spring, spring-summer

I would have considered this self-explanatory from my previous posts, but evidently I had to clarify it. We measure time as our position within various cycles. That's what time is -- even your computer, while showing you bastardly-queer Greenwich time on the screen, relies on the cyclicality of a tiny little quartz crystal's oscillations in order to measure time.

Now, let's consider the other aspects of the criticism. The fact that, according to GMT, an inexplicable 24-hour jump occurs at the IDL. The fact that when a man in Asia telephones a man in America, the man in Asia is several hours in the future and his voice has to time-travel into the past in order to reach the American's ears. And the fact that there are only 24 hours in one rotation of Earth, despite Time Cube proving that there are in fact 96 hours, or 4 simultaneous 24 hour days, in but a single rotation. Do you believe in the logical validity of these "facts"?

You still don't seem to be able to answer a straight question with a straight answer. I understand that this stuff is completely obvious to you, but we've clearly been brainwashed and need to take this slowly. If I understand your points correctly then I think the answer I've been looking for would be 'midday' for the Chicago person and anybody west of him by up to 45° would have a time of 'midday-sundown', including our cases at 5W and 15W. I would love to consider the other aspects of the criticism, especially your hypothetical telephone conversation, but I fear that I can't in all seriousness do so until I've finally got this first bit nailed. Presuming my inference for what you would write for time is correct, could you tell me what a train timetable may say in London for trains that leave at 20 and 50 minutes past each other? I.e. what would the train company put to paper to communicate the time that the trains at 10.20am, 10.50am, 11.20am, 11.50am and 12.20pm leave? I'm hoping that you'll just write the answer for us rather than provide the algorithm as you have above. I know that the algorithm will then let us work out any other case, but I'm afraid that we won't all understand it as clearly as you do. — KayEss | talk 15:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It would be west of him by up to 90° for the quadrant west of midday (which, as far as I can see, is actually "sunup-midday").

10.20am = 0.7222 sunup-midday. 10.50am = 0.8056 sunup-midday. 11.20am = 0.8889 sunup-midday. 11.50am = 0.9722 sunup-midday. 12.20pm = 0.0556 midday-sundown.

To these, you can add corner-quadrant positions in other cycles -- such as the cycle of the moon, and cycle of the year.

Anon, I agree fully with KayEss; you seem to be deliberately evading the question. Time Cube seems to be a highly impractical timekeeping system, especially if there is no method of actually recording time. Please precisely give an example of how to record time using the Time Cube timekeeping scheme, not a vague explanation of how to convert. I would also like to know if this comes from Mr. Ray's work or it is your own addition. What time/day is it using Time Cube notation on Sunday, April 30th, at precisely noon (CDT) in Chicago, Illinois? How about 5 degrees west, at the same time? How about 15 degrees west? I know you feel that it is self-evident, but I think an example conversion, and explaining how you converted the time, would be most helpful. I am sorry that we don't understand; we are trying in good faith to see how to use this timekeeping scheme. Perhaps you can consider it practice for converting others to your beliefs in the future. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:01, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

At noon, midday. 5 degrees west, 0.9444 sunup-midday. 15 degrees west, 0.8333 sunup-midday. You would measure the day in terms of cycle of the moon and cycle of the year; so for instance, April 30 in northern hemisphere would be approximately 1/9 into the spring-summer quadrant (that is, the quadrant between the vernal equinox and summer solstice). You can similarly determine the corner-quadrant position in the lunar cycle.

Anon, I fear that you're just making this up as you go along. How does your assertion of using a fraction tie in with the All Clock Faces Are Wrong page on the time cube site? You are the one who pointed this page out earlier in the discussion and it just doesn't work with the system that you propose. Maybe Dr. Ray is wrong in asserting his new clock face? He doesn't provide any explanation of how it works. A normal clock's hour hand goes around twice per day, but there is no indication of what part of a day the 16 'cubic hours' relate to, but I suspect Dr. Ray meant one day as he does go on about his 4/16 rotation principle. So, Anon, please can you clear up the confusion here? Once that is done then I think we can probably move on to the time travel. — KayEss | talk 03:23, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

No "ad hominem" attacks, please. You have not refuted the supremacy of the 4-corner-quadrant division. One can make further divisions of 4 within the existing quadrants; however, it is the 4-corner-quadrant division of the full rotation that is of importance. One would merely divide it into the shorter measurements of hours for convenience; it is probably easier to read hours and minutes than to read a fraction.

Again, the time system I am describing is designed to comply with the 4-corner-quadrant division; this division being inherent to the property of 4 simultaneous days in 1 rotation of Earth. Refute the supremacy of 4, and the 4/16 rotation principle, if you want to dispute it. Now what is your response to the other points of criticism?

As I've said before, please read up and understand what 'ad hominem' means before you accuse people of it. You already know that you're making yourself look idiotic by continually failing to grasp a fairly simple concept, but enough about that, we've been through it before. If you read my question I wasn't trying to refute anything, I was asking how your concept was compatible with Dr. Ray's concepts of time keeping. You managed to write a lot of works, but I'm afraid I couldn't get any meaning from them whatsoever. Can you describe to us how Dr. Ray's clock works and how it fits in with what you have been describing? I'm hoping that we don't have to ask this question twenty times before receiving an answer... — KayEss | talk 07:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

You suggest I'm "just making this up as you go along", thus implying that the argument is false. You ignore the argument's content, but associate its validity with an imagined motive of the person who has put it forth. Obviously it's an attempted "ad hominem" attack, and I am rather inclined to think that either you do not grasp the concept, or you are skewing its definition in order to justify your own frequent usage of personal attacks.

I said: "the time system I am describing is designed to comply with the 4-corner-quadrant division". Examining the Cubic Clock, we notice that it is divided into Quadrants. It would thus correspond to the day-night cycle in a way such as the following: 16 = Midday, 4 = Sundown, 8 = Midnight, 12 = Sunup.

I also said this: "One can make further divisions of 4 within the existing quadrants ... One would merely divide it into the shorter measurements of hours for convenience; it is probably easier to read hours and minutes than to read a fraction." You will notice that the quadrants on the clock have been iteratively divided into 4. This is as I described: an alternative more convenient than using a single fraction to represent a position within one of the quadrants.

Now, there are two questions: will I need to clarify this even more, and what is your response to the as yet unaddressed points of criticism? 211.28.6.164

No, I think we're clear now. Well, clearish anyway. So, we have three observers, one at Chicago, one 5W of his position and one 15W of Chicage. You said: At noon, midday. 5 degrees west, 0.9444 sunup-midday. 15 degrees west, 0.8333 sunup-midday. For one thing I don't see how this is different to just using 'local time' with a different definition for 'hour' (if you're interested you will find that the traditional Thai time keeping is done on exactly these quadrants, but they have six hours and not four 'cubic hours' between the divisions). As I do happen to be in Bangkok and I were to call my friend in Chicago as you have stated this means that my voice has to time travel if we use GMT. Now, if the observer at 15W of Chicago calls my friend the observer's time is 0.8333 sunup-midday, but my friend at Chicago's time is midday. I guess the observer's voice also has to time travel by 0.1777 quadrants doesn't it? — KayEss | talk 11:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

This has to do with a criticism of which we should all by now be well aware -- that of the 24-hour difference at the IDL. The 24-hour difference is required in order to impose upon the rest of the world the days experienced by the Greenwich corner. 12noon 30 Apr 2005, for instance, is considered to be a fixed point in linear time at Greenwich. But extrapolating it to the rest of the world, we find that Asia experiences that fixed point several hours ahead of America. This indicates that Asia is in the future compared to America.

This is not the case with Cubic time -- for all points of a given latitude are considered to exist simultaneously. We would measure the time of the phone call in terms of cycles independent of longitude -- for instance, the cycle of the moon, and cycle of the year. We cannot postulate there to be a single, supreme corner by which all time is measured, because otherwise we run into the single-corner contradictions described.

Actually, I confess that I have suspected for some time now that you don't actually understand Time Cube (perhaps no one can understand it), in part because as you are questioned more closely, Time Cube becomes more and more like our current system. Thank you, though, for providing the examples; I believe I was able to work out how they were done. I am curious, though: your calculations for 5W and 15W appear to use 6:00am as sunrise, whereas, on April 30, sunrise was around 5:46 am. Closer to the solstices, the discrepancy will be more. Are observers in the sunrise or sunset corners simply when they are halfway between noon and midnight, or during their actual sunrise or sunset? It would appear that at Chicago's latitude at this time of year, someone exactly at "sunrise" would have full daylight, and someone watching a sunrise would actually be in the "midnight-sunrise" quadrant. From what you describe, keeping time by Time Cube appears remarkably similar to our current system—it seems you were right: it is relatively simple to convert them. Is this the correct algorithm?:

1. Take your "truly local" time (let's use 24-hour/military time)
2. If time is 0000, "midnight"
3. If time is between 0000 and 600, divide by 6 hours and list as "# midnight-sunrise"
4. If 0600, "sunrise"
5. If between 0600 and 1200, subtract six hours, divide by 6 hours and list as "# sunrise-noon"
6. If 1200, "noon"
7. If between 1200 and 1800, subtract twelve hours, divide by 6 hours and list as "# noon-sunset"
8. If 1800, "sunset"
9. If between 1800 and 0000, subtract eighteen hours, divide by 6 hours and list as "# sunset-midnight"

Also, it seems that the four corners are each 6 hours apart, which adds up to 24 hours, as does conventional timekeeping systems, right? One more question: since it depends on your location, how do you communicate times to others? If I know that my favorite TV show will come on at 0.84234712 noon-sunset, and want to post it on my blog so my friends in other cities can watch it, what do I write? Oh and I almost forgot: are these parameters part of Mr. Ray's theory, or are they your own additions? — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:35, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Correct, one observer will have 24 hours; however, given 4 simultaneous observers, one for each corner, we obtain 96 hours and 4 simultaneous days. As I explained above, different latitudes have the same time simultaneously, and so we would need to measure a time across a whole latitude in terms of longitude-independent cycles, such as the cycle of the moon and cycle of the year.

Internet kooks and crackpots have been a guilty pleasure of mine for years, but only recently did I discover this "Time Cube" guy. I know there's no reasoning with him, but I would like to know why the rest of you let him get away with his criticism of GMT (now actually UTC) on the basis that it requires you to jump back or forward 24 hours when you cross the International Date Line. This is exactly wrong; the whole point of GMT (and then UTC) is to provide a universal time that would be the same no matter where you happened to be in the world. When it's 1200 UTC on May 1 in London, it's also 1200 UTC on May 1 in New York, Tokyo and even on the Date Line. That's why GMT and now UTC are so widely used in science, aviation and international communications.

But extrapolating from that definition of linear time for a single corner, we find that Asia is several hours in the future compared to America, and that a 24-hour jump occurs at the IDL. These are illogicalities caused by applying a single-corner perspective to a 4-corner rotation.

And inasmuch as GMT was defined to be the mean solar time at Greenwich, England, and this definition has been universally accepted, it is no more reasonable to argue that this definition should be open to dissenting views than to say that the widely accepted definition of the digit "2" should also be open to dissenting views from those who think it should mean "three".

If there were a compelling reason for "2" to mean "three", then I would consider that criticism perfectly valid. If we define the Earth as "flat", a compelling reason for it to be "round" could quite justifiably be put forth. It's a similar case with GMT -- the errors inherent to the concept are significant and should be made clear.

It's been fun, but it's time to bring this to a conclusion. Stop giving the kooks the attention they crave. Ban them if you have to, but stop the vandalism of the page. User:Karn 01:34 May 2 2005 UTC.

"Stop being rational" seems to be your demand here. The so-called "vandalism" constitutes addition of criticism that I have justified above. Maybe you can't refute it, and so are suggesting that the Truth be closed-mindedly withheld from Wikipedia users.

Sorry pal, but you're the one who's not making any rational sense here whatsoever. Or maybe you're just pulling our legs, just to see how far you can go. Collaborative projects like Wikipedia rely on the good will of their contributors who operate by consensus. That does not mean unanimity, for reasons that are now all too obvious; one can still encounter the occasional psychotic (or merely attention-seeking) crackpot who will never concede even the most irrefutable statements of fact. Gene Ray has had plenty of time and opportunity to promote and explain his bizarre views, yet he has yet to attract more than one adherent (or two, if you indeed are not him, which I find hard to believe). So at some point, it becomes time to declare a consensus. And that consensus, if I am sensing it correctly, is to exclude any mention of Ray's views from a perfectly straightforward description of the defined meaning of the term "Greenwich Mean Time" as it has been and is understood and used by the other 6.4 billion humans on this planet. User:Karn 05:54 May 2 2005 UTC.

That consensus is to avoid rational consideration of Time Cube, and legitimate criticism of the GMT concept. Now if you have some rational disproof of Time Cube, or of the criticism, which you have thus far withheld, it would be useful if you could post it.

Anon, I am suddenly alarmed for the state of your immortal soul. Your system corresponds to an infinite number of local times based on the longitutude of the observer. Dr. Ray says that this is evil and as a believer I assume that you don't wish to be evil so how do you manage? As an aside you say But extrapolating from that definition of linear time for a single corner, we find that Asia is several hours in the future compared to America. I fail to see how your system is any different. When Chicago is at midnight then there will be a point in Asia that is at midday - aren't these two times 'several hours apart'? This is by your system of time keeping... — KayEss | talk 04:39, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

The "infinite number" in fact exists as billions of different combinations or mixtures of the 4 corners. Let us compare the two systems: say that Person X is at sunup and Person Y at midday. They occupy these positions simultaneously, so we measure their shared time in terms of an independent cycle. So for instance, Person X is at sunup, point A in the moon's cycle and point I in the year, and Person Y is at sunup, point A of moon and point I of year.

When the Earth rotates 90 degrees, the cycles of moon and year have progressed. So let's say, person X is at midday, point B of moon and point J of year; and person Y is at sundown, point B of moon and point J of year.

We find that Person X's midday was identified as a different temporal point to Person Y's midday. But if we define Person X as existing at 6am 2 May 05, and Person Y as existing at 12pm 2 May 05. Then in 6 hours, Person X arrives at 12pm 2 May 05 -- the same point as Person Y, six hours ago! From this, we deduce that Person X was six hours in the past compared to Person Y. This is one of the illogicalities I've been pointing out.

I'm still trying to figure out how he can seriously use the word "corner" in connection with a planet that even he admits is roughly spherical, not flat, and therefore has no corners at all. Indeed, he accuses us of being the logical equivalents of flat-earthers! I can't figure out if this guy is just pulling our legs, in which case he ought to be banned as a vandal, or if he truly believes what he's saying, in which case he needs help of a sort that we cannot provide. Either way, there's little to be gained from continuing to argue with him. Figure out how to ban him and do it. User:Karn 06:07 UTC May 2 2005 UTC.

It's quite simple, Karn: we draw a square around the equator, with corners corresponding to Midday, Sundown, Midnight and Sunup. We then project this square along the rotational axis between the north and south poles, thus forming a dilated Cube with 4 corners (corners being vertical edges; those parallel to the rotational axis). Now if you cannot comprehend this simple concept, maybe you require help: either in gaining a higher IQ, or in overcoming brainwashing and indoctrination that blinds you to anything contrary to the beliefs you were taught.

Inasmuch as the equator describes a circle, not a square, and a cube has 8 corners, not 4, I think you're the one who needs help in overcoming brainwashing. Or at the very least, help in thinking a little more clearly. Medication might be of help, but that's out of my field. GMT (now replaced by UTC) and the time zone system seem to work very well indeed for everyone on this planet but you. User:Karn May 3 0155 UTC.

You will notice that at no point above did I say that the equator is a square. What I said was "we draw a square around the equator". You will also note that I made it clear that by "corners" I am referring not to vertices, but to "vertical edges", of which there are 4. Now if you are going to argue against the use of that definition, try looking up "corner" in a dictionary to see that edges -- and, in the case of a room's four corners, vertical edges -- are indeed included.

From this, we can see that the problem here is your own lack of reading comprehension. Maybe you should read my posts more carefully in future.

Actually I did notice your use of the term "vertical edges". I deliberately ignored it rather than lend any credibility to your annoying habit of arbitrarily redefining existing terms with stable and widely understood meanings. Besides, none of the edges of the cube you've drawn are "vertical" by the universally understood meaning of that term, i.e., "perpendicular to the earth's surface". If by "vertical" you meant "parallel to the earth's axis of rotation" you should have said so. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you not only redefine terms at will, you carelessly use other terms in nonstandard ways without even bothering to define them at all?

As I said, look up "corner" in a dictionary; "vertical edges" is included, meaning that your accusation of unjustified redefinition is unfounded. As I also said: "corners being vertical edges; those parallel to the rotational axis". The terms "vertical" and "horizontal" extend beyond their relation to Earth's surface; on a piece of paper placed flat on a horizontal table, lines pointing towards/away from you are considered "vertical" and left/right lines "horizontal". We similarly extrapolate the concept to consider Earth as a whole having the rotational axis as "vertical", and the rotational plane as "horizontal".

You have yet to provide a single reason that anyone should waste any time on your model. You have yet to cite any problem whatsoever with existing, accepted timekeeping systems that are resolved by the "Time-Cube" model, probably because there are none. The burden of proof is entirely on you, and you have't even begun to meet it. Instead you seem to argue just for the sake of arguing. I for one am tired of it. User:Karn 4 May 2005 03:51 UTC

Problem 1: 24-hour jump at the IDL. Problem 2: other mysterious time-warps, e.g. Asia several hours ahead of America (see my response to KayEss above). Problem 3: it encompasses only 1 day in a single rotation of Earth, whereas Time Cube proves that there are 4 simultaneous days in the same. If you want to dispute this last problem, you will have to disprove the 4/16 Rotation Principle, which proves the 4 simultaneous days.

Hello, Anon, thanks for your response. I feel I understand Time Cube much better than before we talked. Time Cube is an interesting and creative idea, and I will be interested to see what Mr. Ray comes up with in the upcoming website update. I have been rereading the paragraph you had previously inserted and it seems to me that we have discussed all its aspects. Incidentally, please feel free to split my comment if you find it more convenient. I will summarize what I believe we have discussed:

"Time Cube adherents believe that the use of the GMT time zone in particular is erroneous as it only allows for a single day per 24 hours and not the four that they advocate.". Correct; an observer in the GMT time zone will only see 24 hours. As you stated above, this is so in cubic time as well. We must have an observer in each of the four corners to see the full 96 hours. As they each measure time simulaneously in their corners, they will measure four simultaneous days.

"It also postulates that crossing the International Date Line instantaneously sends one forward or back 24 hours in time." As you agreed above, no time travel is postulated: as each observer changes longitude, his local time will change (continuously in cubic time, discretely in conventional time), although no time travel is suspected. Further, you are correct that the International Date Line is definitely a timekeeping inconvenience and a bit counterintuitive. It stems from having days have a start and an end, which is of course arbitrary. Cubic time appreciates that days are continuous cycles with a period of 24 hours, something which many may forget: discrete dates with starting and ending points are arbitrary and a human invention. Despite the inconvenience and counterintuitiveness of the IDL, however, all governments and societies on Earth currently record time in discrete days over continuous time due to the convenience of having separate dates for events and such.

They are manmade divisions representing a single-corner perspective centred at the Greenwich corner, as I explained. The criticism is that they constitute an erroneous conceptualisation, similar to governments adopting an arbitrary standard whereby the Earth is considered to be flat.

"Observers at Greenwich (and throughout the time zone's coverage) using the most common definition of 'day' need to wait 96 hours before they have seen four of them; this is because they are only in one corner, whereas the 4 simultaneous days are observed through equal consideration of all 4 corners." Yes, as above. Anyone in one corner will have to wait 96 hours to see the four days; we will need observers in all four corners to observe the four simultaneous days. This is regardless of whether one is using conventional time or cubic time. Correct?

No; conventional newtonian physics, and presumably more modern versions also, show the Earth undergoing one rotation in only 24 hours of linear time. It can only cover one observer at a time, and it thus fails to take into account the 4 simultaneously existing corners, and the 4 simultaneous days proven to exist within 1 rotation of Earth. From the 4/16 Rotation principle, it is proven that Time is Cubic, not Linear. Linear time is a 1-corner perspective; the universe in its totality, however, is proven to include the Cubic 4 corners.

Anon, it may be that you are correct in your criticism of GMT. Certainly, all editors feel that their version is the correct one. While that is good justification for modifying an article, when there is disagreement, realize that each person feels that he or she is correct. However, Wikipedia is a community-based encyclopedia, and works by consensus. Currently, the consensus appears to be against inclusion of this text, as you are the only one who supports its inclusion. I therefore ask you not to revert unless there is additional support for the material's inclusion. I will unprotect this article, as I feel protection, especially prolonged, is harmful. Please respect the consensus. If only person supports a change and the rest oppose, that change should not take place. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:07, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, I will respect that. I have explained the criticism on this talk page, anyway. Right now, I will be focusing on opposing unjustified deletions of content from the Time Cube article.

Thank you, I appreciate that. I have unprotected Coordinated Universal Time and Time zone as well. I have not responded to your comments above based on your intention to focus on Time Cube; however, I am open to continuing discussion on this topic if you would like and still feel this article should include discussion of Time Cube. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

But if no other argument could occur to exclude UTC and Greenwich Mean Time from the list of time keeping systems, it were sufficient that the admission of them would overthrow a number which I was resolved to establish, whatever argument it might cost me; in imitation of that prudent method observed by many other philosophers and great clerks, whose chief art in division has been to grow fond of some proper mystical number, which their imaginations have rendered sacred to a degree that they force common reason to find room for it in every part of Nature, reducing, including, and adjusting, every genus and species within that compass by coupling some against their wills and banishing others at any rate. Now, among all the rest, the profound number FOUR is that which has most employed my sublimest speculations, nor ever without wonderful delight. There is now in the press, and will be published next term, a panegyrical essay of mine upon this number, wherein I have, by most convincing proofs, not only reduced the senses and the elements under its banner, but brought over several deserters from its two great rivals, TWELVE and TWENTY-FOUR. (With thanks to Jonathan Swift for providing the structure of the argument and with tongue firmly in cheek) — KayEss | talk 02:49, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Haha very funny KayEss, but actually you haven't disproven Time Cube. If you want to claim that four is not the supreme number of the universe and is not strongly linked to nature, then you will need to provide supporting reasons rather than merely asserting it.

Actually, 24 is derivable from the Cube. 6 faces by 4 vertices each = 24. 8 tricorners by 3 faces/edges joining at each = 24. 12 is also derivable from figures known as "Metatron's cube" and "flower of life", derived from the perspective of a diagonal through the cube's centre.