Jump to content

Talk:Time Cube/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 17

Xiphoris

I'm just wondering ... is the Time Cube stuff actually supposed to be serious (like, say, Scientology) or is it pinnacle of a well-done Internet Troll? -- Xiphoris 19:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely serious, Xiphoris; but UNLIKE scientology, Time Cube is a rationally proven fact. I suggest that you view the sites Time Cube and [spam removed]. You must seek Time Cube!

Interesting coincidence?

In Tarot MythoMorphic architecture, the only way to resolve the Disparity of the 40 minor arcana sites with the 10 sefirot is to multiply the tree into four worlds. This is done via an esoteric configuration of geometries involving both the flower of life pattern and "Metatrons cube." This fits very well with the four quarter elemental theory of Tarot, and assorted wheel of the year myths, which Tarot is almost certainly based on.

Some few of the things this guy has to say make him sound like a clairvoyant that is randomly picking up extremely esoteric information and then blending that into stream of consciousness BS.

He probably does just need one person who could understand him. Prometheuspan 04:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

or thorazine. - Nunh-huh 04:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
People do understand it... and the scary thing is that they're not delusional schizophrenic crackpots like Gene Ray. I'd have to say that the guy who runs Cubic Awareness Online probably understands it better than anyone (even Gene himself, despite the fact that he is apparently "the Wisest Human"), and defends it vehemently on the official forum. But I'm convinced it's just an elaborate joke... Just take a look at his forum avatar. You can tell he's not really serious about it - he's trying too hard to look insane. --LuminaryJanitor 10:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_qdr=all&q=metatron%27s+cube&spell=1 just visited the site. Yeah, this guys stuff is straight out of Esoteric Judaism. Its been well recoded, but its not even original material. lol. Prometheuspan 04:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, LuminaryJanitor, it's not a joke, but rather is a rationally proven fact. I hardly think that [spam removed] should be viewed as an "insane" site; rather, it is quite well-thought-out and rational. Dr Gene Ray is not delusional nor schizophrenic, but rather, highly intelligent, and indeed the greatest thinker and wisest human. Learn to know Time Cube!

Metatron

Self-reference

Has anyone noticed that timecube.com now includes: 

Opposite sexes created you.
Ignorance of the Time Cube, Life Cube &
Ineffable Truth Cube, indicts you Stupid.
Ignoring Cubic Creation indicts you evil.
Singularity God impossible.
Wikipedia allowing the educated stupid
to evaluate the 4 simultaneous 24 hr. days
within a single rotation of Earth, equates
allowing atheist to proof-read the bible.

William M. Connolley 21:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Just saw that today. Then had an epileptic fit from viewing the site. (God, that never gets old.) --Jack (Cuervo) 01:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, there are more than 4 simultaneous 24-hour days: there are 24 of them. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 23:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Hence his hatred for GMT heath1444

out of curiosity, how would you disprove the claim on the article? It's in all liklihood perfectly true given the givens. The problem is the givens make no sense. 24.5.125.232 06:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Racial Claims

"Sunup represents Indian Race; Midday represents White Race; Sundown represents Asian Race; Midnight represents Black Race."

According to The Racial State (Cambridge University Press), page 24, this idea was postulated by Carl Gustav Carus (1789-1869), only the "sundown" & "sunup" races are reversed, at least according to my reference. To him it states, this categorization reflected their different amounts of "inner illumination". Nagelfar 13:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Refutations

Although I do applaud a section highlighting the differences between conventional science and Time Cube, I think it's wrong to claim a contradiction within the theory using hypotheses not accepted in the Time Cube framework.

For example, the article states:

There exist proofs that a negative number times a negative number is a positive number, working solely from a very small set of set theoretic axioms and axioms for first-order predicate logic This refutes the claim that there is anything strange about −1 × −1 = 1.

I don't think Gene Ray is claiming that the conclusion can't be proven using conventional axioms of math and conventional logic; he's saying that, from his point of view, the result −1 × −1 = 1 is such a bad ("evil") one that we shouldn't accept the theory leading up to it. For example, some might rid themselves of the Axiom of Choice because they don't like the Banach–Tarski paradox, others of Quantum Mechanics due to EPR states. (Both groups are in minority nowadays, though.)

Given this, I think we should change the last sentence to something along the lines of:

This shows that the result −1 × −1 = 1 is a logical consequence of basic axioms which underlie modern science. Hence, it is reasonable to believe that Time Cube inherently incompatible with commonly accepted theories.

The second statement in the article is:

There also exists a proof for the Lindemann-Weierstrass theorem which proves that pi is transcendental and thus cannot be rational, nor constructible. This refutes both the claim that pi is equal to 3.20 exactly, and proves the impossibility of squaring the circle.

I know that Gene Ray often states that 3.20 is a "perfect pi", but is this the same as saying that the pi in conventional math should be 3.20? Regarding his claims about "squaring the circle" and "cubing the earth sphere", didn't a picture on his web page make it clear that he was talking about finding an inscribed circle/sphere (which is an entirely different problem)?

I'm refraining from editing the article first to avoid spuring another edit controversy.

-- Woseph 21:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree TimeCube does not claim that academian math is wrong from its own perspective, but

that it dosent flollw cubic creation and thus does not truly model reality.

Woseph is right, the 1-corner mathematics underlying conventional science is wrong and evil and incompatible with Time Cube. I have no idea why Dr Ray stated 3.20 as the "perfect pi" (other than it might have had something to do with a cube being 96% of itself), but it merits mention in the article anyway.
And yes, the square doesn't have to equal the area of the circle, rather it merely has to participate in the creation of a 4-corner quadrant division. See article 4 is the Supreme Number of the Universe.
Exactly, they are "incompatible". So one-corner math cannot be used to disprove TimeCube claims
83.93.104.64 (talk · contribs) (the adsl-dhcp.tele.dk anon; geoloc near Arhus)
Actually, one-corner maths (which really should be referred to as one-face or one-perspective maths) does show that cubic maths is innefficient and inferior, as cubic maths cannot map its solution set to any context other than by the use of one-face maths to keep track of which solution goes to which "corner" or "side" in a problem. For example, in Cubic maths, you cannot tell if 1 + 1 = 0, -1, 2 or -2, UNLESS you keep track of which result goes to which context, that is by noting 1+1 refers to +2, and -1 -1 refers to -2 in one-corner/face maths etc. So ironically you NEED one-corner maths to do anything useful with cubic maths. But pof course, with one-corner/face (normal) maths you can do anything cubic maths might try to do, so it is more efficient and cubic maths contains redundancy and loss of information. And yet cubicists claim their maths superior to what they call one-corner maths (normal maths). This shows that what they say is black is really white. They would wish to replace what works with something that is less and that is meaningless (or has less usefull information). I think that is their point though, that by making maths no longer useful, humans cannot build technology to destroy itself or something. Its a pretty defeatist way of thinking, and very closed minded, because after a while they think everything is a cube. After all, in order to solve the problems we have today including global warming and pollution, we NEED technology! If we allowed technology to disintegrate today, we would all soon die, because even basic things like getting fresh water and food require significant reliance on technology. By following TimeCube's salvation plan, they would inadvertently bring into being the sort of Armageddon they always claim is going to happen to those they call "cubeless fools". Trucks would no longer run and no longer ship food to supermarkets, and many ordinary people would starve, and probably revert to the kind of cannibalism that Cubehead and others say will happen if we dont become cubicists! And what if avian bird flue breaks out? Without technology, would cubisists survive, just because they "think" they are superhuman because they can abuse people and call themselves greater than God / gods? I say no: Its all just a vast delusion of grandeur. Conclusion: They are a collection of abused youth (not counting Gene Ray) with severe perception disorders who are blind to their own obvious hipocrisy. Keep away from them and dont fuel their popularity. - EWM
203.173.31.155 (talk · contribs) (the iinet.net.au; apparently geoloc. near Melbourne)
Incorrect, the 1-corner maths is limited and logically contradictory. See article -1*-1=+1 is Stupid and Evil. Only the Cubic maths will yield a full, correct solution.
So you are saying that humanity is better off retaining all the nuclear weapons, and all the guns, and chemical weapons, etc. You are saying that all that technology has to be retained. Actually, the technological world is corrupt and destructive, and must be reformed in order not to destabilise humanity.
Avian bird flu will be mitigated by decommissioning the manmade factory-farms. It is a similar measure to abolishing Nazi concentration camps.
We are not yet superhuman, but will be able to become superhuman if we continue with evolution. This is possible through Cubic truth, and not through Christian hypocrisy. Christianity blinds humanity and condemns us to a nihilistic strangulation.
211.28.7.232 (talk · contribs) (the optusnet.com.au anon; geoloc. near Melbourne)

Claims

An anon recently added an unacceptable volume of original, seemingly scriptural, claims of the Time Cube theory, and did not format them as quotes. (There were also rows of dashes, equal signs and asterisks that messed up the wiki.) Either someone doesn't understand how Wikipedia works, or this is simple vandalism. If Time Cubists are to have a wiki, why can't it be a Book or a City? Seahen 23:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good recommendation, Seahen. The wiki format could offer a good opportunity for expanding upon the already available information on TimeCube.com and CubicAO.tk.
211.28.7.232 (talk · contribs) (the optusnet.com.au anon; geoloc. near Melbourne)

Infinte days on earth

By Gene Ray's logic, wouldn't there be an infinite amount of days at any single moment on earth? Seeing that a step will affect your time, however miniscule, but it still affects it. Wizrdwarts 00:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. There are only four days. Further days are mere mixtures of those existing four days. See article 4/16 Rotation Principle for proof of this.
211.28.7.232 (talk · contribs) (the optusnet.com.au anon; geoloc. near Melbourne)

Time disproves God

Quote: 1.A self has a 4-corner head, but only a 1-corner face. 2.An individual can only occupy one of Earth's 4 Corner-quadrants. 3.Also, one can only occupy a single corner of the life-cycle at a time. (not these three uinder trinity) But to be omniscient and omnipotent, a God must occupy 4 corners. The fact is that a self can only occupy 1. A single, supreme, self of a God simply could not exist. A 1-corner God is a single point and a zero point and a singularity. If God was omniscient and omnipotent, he would need all four of the corners. But a god with four corners would be a cubic spirit. We wouldn't even call it God, instead we'd call it Time Cube.

feel free to give me your views on this , what would you call it? (a)theory (b)cult (c)paradigm (sorry for the bad grammar if you see any) (d)nonsense (it's ok if your honest with me)

Aeon, Time Cube is a theory, and a total paradigm shift for humanity <yes, directly backwards into insanity, if that is what you mean>. By contrast, <removed for extreme hatred>

Lance Kennedy

May I make it clear that Lance Kennedy is certainly not a disciple of Dr Gene Ray. Dr Ray has previously expressed his disapproval of Lance: and now, Lance is attempting to usurp control of Time Cube doctrines, and to modify them with the intention of creating a cult.

We should not tolerate his Cubeless self-empowerment. We should not tolerate his religiously-based distortion of the rational truth of Time Cube.

Time Parallelepiped?

As I understand it, this whole idea revolves around the claim that there are four days in each 24 hour rotation of the Earth -- one each starting at noon, midnight, sunset and dawn? However, given that the Earth is tilted on its axis, and so day length varies across the globe, surely time is a parallelepiped, and not a cube? --193.38.88.6 13:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Explanation from Timecube.com
"Earth has perfect vertical axis: The Earth axis tilt represents an inperfection upon which life is based. If the Earth axis was perfectly vertical, there would be no divisions of life as in seasons and therefore no life. Earth rotates 4 simultaneous seasons simultaneously as it revolves around the Sun, thus creating 4 simultaneous years as in a separate year for each season. The spinning of Earth while creating the 4 simultaneous years causes the Earth to travel 4 Times the distance of a non-rotating planet circling the Sun. Sum-up the axis tilt of those 4 simultaneous years and divide by 4 to discover a perfectly vertical Earth axis which represents the perfection of death."
87.51.236.46 (talk · contribs) (the adsl-dhcp.tele.dk anon; geoloc. near Arhus)
Indeed. The Earth's tilt averages to zero over the whole year. If we consider Earth's axial rotation by itself, without any other cycles included, then it forms a harmonic Time Cube. See article Cube Representation.
211.28.22.241 (talk · contribs) (the optusnet.com.au anon; apparently geolocated near Melbourne)
Precession of the equinoxes requires that it doesn't quite average to zero. Actually, scratch that - Earth's axial tilt remains at 23.45° with only a slight variation over the course of the year so it's nowhere near zero. Silly me, this "averages to zero" thing was so wrong I didn't notice the main problem with it. :) Bryan 04:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Source for claim that Pi = 3.20?

By any chance did Gene Ray get the idea for Pi = 3.20 from the Indiana Pi Bill, where it was based on an approximation? Is Gene the reincarnation of Edward J. Goodwin? Bear in mind the reason he's quoted for claiming Pi = 3.20, something to do with 96%, is meaningless as 3.20 can't possibly be 96% of a number that's smaller -- and 96% of 3.20 is 3.072, which is also different from the "evil academian" value of Pi!

Never mind Time Cube, I need to seek a drink... Dave-ros 21:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't know where the claim "96% of (old) π" came from. As far as I know, he claims that 3.20, or 80% of 4, is the "perfect π". Also, if I understand things correctly - I might very well not in this case - he believes 100% should be changed to 96%, and that this in turn would imply the "perfect π" of 3.20. For example, on page 77 in "Code of the Pyramid" he writes:
CUBIC PERFECT
96% 100% PI.3.20
80% OF 4
I think the "96% of pi" claim is a misunderstanding, so we should probably remove it. I won't speculate as to whether or not he was inspired by Goodwin. -- Woseph 11:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
In the "Bucket of gems" video clip at 43:01 Gene Ray states the following. "96 is the perfect number. It should replace the 100%. And if used 96, I believe your pi 3.20 will be the perfect pi. But we have to change all our math. Based on the cube math the perfect math which is 96." I think he literally means that the perfect pi is 96% of normal pi. But i could be wrong.
I just read the "code of the pyramid" and you are right he does explicitly state that perfect pi = 80% of 4. So I am gonna change it to that. However I am abit puzzled as to where the number 80 suddenly came from.
87.49.152.131 (talk · contribs) (the adsl-dhcp.tele.dk anon; geoloc. near Arhus)
It looks as if he's trying to find a differently based numbering system where PI can be expressed in a non-repeating format. Why this would be useful escapes me. Calladus 21:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Time Cube is not about usefullness. So i dont think he is to concerned with that. Tranqulizer 21:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Why can Time Cube not be considered a theory?

From Wikipedias definition of theory: "Theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on the context and their methodologies. In common usage, people use the word "theory" to signify "conjecture", "speculation", or "opinion." ".

I believe this definition is broad enough for timecube. Now the article reads like it was edited by a logical positivist. I am gonna change it back to theory in a few days if there are no objections.

83.91.171.189 (talk · contribs) (the adsl-dhcp.tele.dk anon; geoloc. near Arhus)

I strongly disagree. Read again the bit about depending on the context. Now read about how "theory" is used in math and science. Or did you have some other context in mind?---CH 18:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Time Cube is clearly not scientific. I think it is agreed that gene ray recents science in general. I think the context is within the broader sense of the word theory in example "conspiracy theory". Those are certainly rarely scientific aswell.
83.88.123.131 (talk · contribs) (the adsl-dhcp.tele.dk anon, geoloc. near Arhus

Look up to see how to sign your comments. ---CH 03:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

In the letter from Gene, he claims:

The Time Cube is not a theory, but is a creation principle by which all life on Earth exists by.

So it's okay to say it is not a theory. I think Time Cube is simliar to the Bagua (concept) in Taoism, which is a 'concept'. -- 219.78.126.146 07:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

That is a good point. I had not thought about that. However he seems to contradict him self when he states that Time Cube is a "Theory of everything" on timecube.com.
83.91.171.189 (talk · contribs) (the adsl-dhcp.tele.dk anon; geoloc. near Arhus)

Please sign your comments in future. TIA ---CH 03:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Having read timecube philosophy and "proof" via "http://www.cubicao.tk/proof.html" and discussed it with a few timecube philosophers. It seems to me that timecube is only partially an explanation for the universe, having inserted the (presumably) 4th dimension, infused with moral and religious ideas. Ultimately there is no way to test cube theory because it exists on a new mathmatical system, along with a theoretical model of the the physical universe. The obvious problem is you can't prove the unprovable, and timecube is ultimately just a religion that tries to prove itself. The result is that it succeeds in creating a universe in which timecube does work, however that universe is not congruent with our current universe.
Ultimately the first line should be changed to read "Time Cube is the proposition that the universe is defined by an all encompassing cubic system, a cryptic concept which has been a frequent target of Internet humor." This is a more accurate description of the idea.
Lastchanch 09:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The point is that theory in its normal usage is meant in a much broader sense than in science. And Please note that the guy who runs that site is not Gene Ray and can only be considered original research according to WP policies. Tranqulizer 14:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Entertaining a bad idea

I am deeply confused by just why this is such a talked about issue. First of all, TimeCube is not a scientific theory, it is not based on well founded mathematics, it can not make any predictions and it can produce no working values that would agree with observable reality. To quote from the "Proof" of Time Cube:

CASE 31 (Cubic Law of Falsity)

From CASE 28, truth, being consistency, is directly contravened by anything that is inconsistent. Inconsistencies are therefore synonymous with falsities. Inconsistencies are to be considered false, not true.

This is the most important feature that rules this out as a scientific theory. A theory doesn't exclude anything, it might be known that a theory does not extend to all possibilities but if at any point real data disagrees with a theory this is where the theory needs to be modified or a new theory needed (I give reference to the history of say, Physics). By stating that anything inconsistent with TimeCube is just false, it's a sure way to prove TimeCube can be only the correct "Theory of everything". As TimeCube claims to be the theory of everything, can I ask what it predicts the mass of the Higgs Boson to be? and what are the views on warped space time, how many dimensions are there in total, and what caused the big bang (Assuming TimeCube allows for the big bang?)

I am not going to go in to the trickery of the mathemtical proofs and axioms to disprove the "mathematics" of TimeCube, most people are not qualified to do so and this is why they disagree with scholars from the last 300 years. I wouldn't sit an 12 year old in front of Einsteins Field Equations and say "have a play, see if you can prove 0 equals infiinity" and neither should people without proper formal education in the field of mathematics seek to do so.

I strongly disagree with the basic premises of all his proofs, I'll start with each one: The axiomatic proof states:

There is a harmonic correlation between the two sets of diametrically opposed directions. This correlation stands as a fundamental property of the first level of existence. It exists within this first level, and what it forms is a principle of static, equal opposites.

Harmonic correlation? There is a sinusoidal relation between them? I see no evidence of that proof. Then to go on and say that this is a fundamental property of existence is just so sweeping he might as well have said that the fundamental property of existence is that everything exists on the back of a giant turtle in space. My point is that there is no justification for his opinions, they are just disguised as facts.

The Epistemological Proof:

If a concept is consistent with reality, then it is true.

Quantum mechanics kind of goes against the grain of what people judge to be reality, who decides what reality is in this definition? Creationists think god created the world, that's their 'reality', evolutionists think that we got here by a slow random process that takes millions of years, that is their 'reality'. Creating a four corner cube out of words is a little ridiculous in my opinion, it doesn't really serve a useful function does it?

The scientific proof isn't actually worth my time to go through and pick out the bad points. Disproving infinity is... interesting.

At the end of the day, Time Cube represents little more than a quasi scientific (i.e. the wording is intended to appear scientific) in order to disprove existence of a god. I am confused why this topic is given so much time and in all honestly, I would put this down to "crackpot" not an educated theorist. The author has given no thought to real proofs or predictions, just created a set of (unfounded) premises and built on them to get to the conclusion that there is no omnipotent being out there.

Think I might start one myself, I'll prove that the world is flat, I think time should be 0, as everything cancels to zero and I'll go from there. Jazzygm 11:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

TOC

I floated the TOC to the right as it was pushing the body of the article too far down IMO. Does this look ok in other resolutions? Anilocra 13:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It looked much, much better before. If you want to shorten the TOC, there are plenty of ways to do that aside from floating. -Silence 13:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Much much better... Anilocra 13:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added headers to remind newbies how to sign their comments. Hopefully our anons will pay heed.---CH 03:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

salute!

I salute you on this highly NEUTRAL articvle. really. quite amazing considering the subject..:) Procrastinating@talk2me 21:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Yes, I was thinking the exact same thing myself (that and "dang negroes and jews!"). Has anyone told this guy that a cube has 6 faces, 8 vertices, and 12 edges, not 4? Or is this evil math? Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 13:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you see, you only get six if you don't count the top and the bottom. The top and the bottom are opposites. These opposites create the four corners. 3D space is evil. Three is the number of the Trinity. The Trinity is three queers. You need the mother. You need a forth dimension. The fourth dimension being time ... but Einstein is an educated stupid too. Cubic time. 4D space time. God is a singularity. You need opposite opposites. That gives you four. Four fours are sixteen. But that minus four minus fours is sixteen is evil. Sixteen faces to the hypercube. Each face has four corners. Each face has an opposite face. The cube is created of opposites not evil entity. Opposites canel to zero. Four opposites to the hypercube. The square root of sixteen is four. Therefore a cube has four faces. If you deny this you're an educated stupid bastard. Jimp 17:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge

I propose to get someone to merge Gene Ray into this article and replace Gene Ray with a redirect to this article. Reason: Gene Ray is notable only for his determined efforts to promote his bizarre theory in various venues, including the Wikipedia.

At present, figures and information about Time Cube overlapping with this article are in Gene Ray. If you disagree with the merger, an alternative would be to clean up both articles so they are not overlapping.

One reason for merging, however, is that it would be easier to protect fewer articles against bad edits by time cubiacs.---CH 03:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a good suggestion, and I think it was previously implemented, and then someone undid it. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be done again, though! - Nunh-huh 03:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Personally I would prefer the clean up. Move/rewrite everything that has to do with the time cube theory here and all personal information about Gene Ray on the page about him.83.91.171.184 12:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC) (adsl-dhcp.tele.dk anon)

I prefer merging since, as I think noone denies, Gene Ray has no claim to notoriety other than Time Cube. And I don't think there is a whole lot WP need say about Gene Ray which is not directly related to Time Cube.---CH 23:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Definitely merge. No use keeping two articles with largely overlapping information. Merge should be quite straightforward, I should imagine. 131.111.8.102 23:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's do it. Or rather (since I am quite busy with other WP stuff), can some user other than myself volunteer to do it? ---CH 02:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Rayspam

Thanks to User:Corky842 for catching some apparent rayspam which I missed, thanks. ---CH 23:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Examples of long-running jokes

It would add to the article imo if someone could add examples of jokes that lasted a long time.70.66.9.162 17:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Redefinition

The user User:McGeddon reverted to a faulty description claiming that Dr Ray redefined science and scientific terminology. Firstly, there is a recurring "ad hominem" attack against Dr Ray, claiming that he redefined words and must therefore be a charlatan. In addition to the "ad hominem" attack designed to discredit Time Cube, there is also a strawman argument, claiming that Time Cube is described with misused words and that Time Cube must therefore be false. Neither the "ad hominem" attack nor the strawman hold any water. This is why we need to rephrase things more clearly: to demonstrate that we are not indulging the logical fallacies to which I have referred.

It claims that Dr Ray redefined science. It would be more correct to say that he has discovered a new, separate, different science. That's because he didn't just take existing scientific jargon, theories, frameworks, etc., and redefine them: he created a scientific framework entirely separate from the 1-cornerism of Academian science. We should say: Dr Ray has replaced Academian scientific theories with a different, Cube-compliant science.

Now if you are claiming that he redefined mathematics to make it Cubically-compliant, what you say is this: "Dr Ray redefined mathematics to make it Cubically-compliant." You don't say: "Dr Ray redefined science and scientific terminology". --User:Time Cube Guy

Contested sentence is "there are a number of claims relating to physics and mathematics, some of which can arguably be tested, while others redefine basic scientific principles and terminology" - all this means is that some of his claims cannot be tested by mainstream science because Ray has invented his own meanings for existing scientific terms (that cubes have four faces, that poles have sexes) which are incompatible with mainstream thinking.
The word "redefine" is obviously confusing and upsetting you, so I've changed the sentence to avoid using that term. Please stop reverting all edits to your previous edit - if you feel strongly that you have a better NPOV wording, you should try to write that instead of throwing in clumsy "some critics have claimed" prefixes. --McGeddon 08:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay I left your new version of the sentence in there. I find that "Sex poles" was drawing a correlation between the north and south poles and the male and female genders--it was a correlative connection, rather than a suggestion that the poles actually had genders.
The Cube's corners are its vertical edges. See article Cube Representation.
We also need to include the proofs. There is a "refutations" section that, despite containing links to forum threads on a forum already linked, was defended and retained by Wikipedia users. If the "refutations" section is going to stay, then it is reasonable to include a 2-link "proofs" section to counterbalance it. And, like the "refutations" section, the "proofs" section should be able to link to subsections of sites the homepages of which have already been linked. Whether the sites are positive/negative/combination has nothing to do with it; they are linked on the basis of being Cube-related and being considered appropriate to be linked.
Morality is but a passing cloud that taints the pure weather of humanity's psychology. You must seek Time Cube. --User:Time Cube Guy

Time Cube Guy, why do you keep adding "He is the wise pioneer leader of the "Cubicists" and/or "Cubics" - surely even you can see this isn't anywhere near NPOV? WikianJim 14:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The article used to have something saying that adherents of Cubic knowledge are known as "Cubics" or "Cubicists". So, I added it back in with the wording changed. Apparently some people do not think Dr Ray is wise. A sad thing, that they do not recognise his magnificent wisdom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.2.10 (talk • contribs) (probably User:Time Cube Guy)
It isn't a matter of thinking he is wise or not. That will always be an opinion and as such is not for an encyclopedia to say. WikianJim 07:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Time_Cube/Archive_13&oldid=1137254079"