Jump to content

Talk:Time Cube/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17

Method Behind the Madness

Not that anyone will care, but a few years ago I was bored at work and found myself pondering about the logic behind Time Cube. Yes, Gene Ray is insane. He's schizophrenic. However, this doesn't mean that he's irrational so much as he's using an "x-logic" to apply to objective reality; this logic is self-contained but doesn't have any real relationship to how everyone else thinks, and is therefore crazy. Anyway, I sat there thinking about it, and noted he was always really emphatic about the 'cube' aspect. Always with the cubes. Three-dimensional, that, so I picked up some post-it notes and started spinning them in my hands in one direction. Viewed from the top, it looks like it's going clockwise. Viewed from the bottom, but still rotating in the same direction, it looks like it's going counter-clockwise, even though it's still rotating in the same direction. That actually makes the whole +1 and -1 stuff make sense, albeit a crazy sort of sense.

I'm not going to add it to the article because it's probably original research, but hey. I don't deny that it's basically a numerology built around the number four, but even though this be madness, there still be method t'it. --The Centipede (talk) 03:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


Time Cube Guy

It appears as though Time Cube Guy, AKA Cubehead, killed himself on the 11th of February. I know many of you have spent a lot of time dealing with him, and thought you might want to be informed.

I am still not entirely convinced that this is true, but he has not been active on his forum since that date (which, you are no doubt aware, is highly unusual). Also, it seems to have been confirmed by a person who actually knew him.

Visit the Cubic AO forum for further details.

http://graveyardofthegods.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=21

specifically: http://graveyardofthegods.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=7664

Upham (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


Time cube and wikipedia

Hi. I just saw this article from WP:UA, and noticed the screenshot had the word "wikipedia". I clicked on the link, and the website criticises wikipedia in a doomsday-talk manner. Has this been discussed before? Should it be mentioned in the article? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 23:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it might be a good idea to mention it in the article, AstroHurricane001; maybe you could add to the article a sentence or two pertaining thereto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimeCubeGuy (talk • contribs)

Grave error has occurred in the Time Cube article

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that Dr Gene Ray says on his TimeCube.com website this statement: "Wikipedia claim that the Time Cube is non-science constitutes a Grave error by the half-brain bastard who can't think opposite of the lies he was taught." Evidently, Dr Ray was referring to one particular revision to the article that was committed by the user "Tranqulizer". I just wanted to point out that as it seems, Dr Gene Ray has deemed "Tranqulizer" a half-brain bastard who can't think opposite of the lies he was taught.

Now let's all seek Time Cube. We all require its magnificent omnific 4-corner Truth wisdom in our lives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimeCubeGuy (talk • contribs)

The most it constitutes is a scientific hypothesis, maybe. Mostly, it's just another way at looking at the same thing that has no method of testing. Furthermore, it predicts nothing relevant, and has no forseeable consequences, as well as going agains founded theory, with far more backing than the mindless ramblings of an old, schizoprenic man. Popisfizzy 00:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
That final statement you made there was an "ad hominem" attack against Dr Gene Ray and Time Cube, Popisfizzy. Furthermore, Time Cube is rationally proven true as we know, thus it is the supreme explanation of this very universe that we inhabit. Also, for relevant predictions, see articles in CubicAO Time Cube in Nature category.
I find that I have adequately addressed your objections, and that YOU—must now seek TIME CUBE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimeCubeGuy (talk • contribs)
Either he's crazy, or he's read 1984 too many times, because he's a perfect example of the concept of doublethink. He claims he wants it to be a scientific theory, meaning he wants scientists (the people he calls stupid and evil) to believe in his theory, yet he also claims that whatever book he's working on will "contradict every scientific and religious idea ever published" (I don't know if this is the quote exactly, but I don't care enough to look it up), which is no way to go about this. I
If he wants to have his idea believed, first he should 1) adhere his ideas to fit correctly with theories already backed by mounds of evidence and observation, or 2) arrange his ideas in a method that can be tested, as well as showing why his theory is correct and others, like relativity, which it violates, are incorrect. Until it fits either of these, it is unfit as a scientific theory, and remains the mindless ramblings of an old, crazy man.
Also, rationally true and empirically true are entirely different concepts, with the former meaning essentially moot. As well, that article you linked to ("CubicAO Time Cube in Nature") is incorrect in its science, which doesn't help your argument at all (Photons are not positively and negatively charged, but neutral. They are their own antiparticle, as are all force particles, but antimatter and matter are very different ideas from positive and negative charges).
Furthermore, TimeCube isn't able to work correctly with the current model of physics unless it adheres by the same math, meaning that it has to be able to explain quantum mechanics, relativity, thermodynamics, motion, etc. using its own math, where -1 * -1 is not equal to 1 (which it is in the accepted axioms of mathematics), further limiting its chances of being accepted as a valid scientific theory.
Unless Gene Ray or whoever else believes his ramblings can rectify these problems, they will remain ignored by the scientific community and continue to be the mindless ramblings of a crazy old man. Popisfizzy 18:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
From what I read, it appears that TimeCube "math" tries to be non-abstract, i.e. applicable in real world as it were. For example, it resents the idea of infinity, because you don't get infinity in real life. Similarly, -1 is not a number you can use in real life. Can you buy -3 bags? Can you buy -3 apples? If you have -3 bags with -3 apples in each, will you get 9 real-life apples? Even if it's flawed at the core, the concept of "practical" math as opposed to "abstract" math is adorable. Maurog 07:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
-3 apples means you have "zero" apples and you "own" 3 apples :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.178.153.233 (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Yea, I don't particularly care for math that doesn't have practical applications, but a lot of higher level mathematics has use in theoretical physics, and even some lower level mathematical that don't normally apply in the real world have use. For example, fractions don't actually occur in the human experience (If you cut an apple into two pieces, you may have two halves of an apple, but that's a human idea. There are still only two whole objects) do show up on the quantum level (quarks, the constituent particles of protons and neutrons, have fractional positive and negative charges). Negative energy states also occur in theoretical physics, which correspond to antimatter, and if tachyons exist, they would have an imaginary mass. Infinity also occurs in our current model of physics, in black holes. They have an infinite density (of course, the infinities may go away when a quantum theory of gravity is devised). Popisfizzy 19:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think it's not so much that quarks have fractional charges, as that protons and electrons have charges of +3 and -3 respectively, while up quarks have a charge of +2 and down quarks have a charge of -1. We just chose our units wrong, believing that protons and electrons were the objects with the smallest charges. Of course, other concepts are still best represented by real numbers, such as energy or distance. 68.151.60.194 (talk) 08:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, if TimeCubeGuy wants to set up an alternative math, he has to actually set it up, not just make one claim. The practical math that we use is undergirded by a vast, rigorously justified theoretical infrastructure that ensures that the simple rules we follow actually produce meaningful results. In particular, the requirement that a negative times a negative equals a positive isn't an axiom, it comes from the theory of mathematical rings; the distributive law wouldn't work if that weren't the case. Also, whenever you're talking about a change, you're going to have the possibility of negative numbers, for example, if you start with 5 apples, buy 3, and eat 4, the change in apples is -1. You can't deal with that situation mathematically if you don't use negative numbers. Miraculouschaos 04:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello Dr. Gene Ray (we all know you are a sockpuppet, stop referring to yourself in the third person)

i would like you to look at this, as this is on the same level of nonsensical statements made true by "rational proof" as Timecube. Let us assume that A = B therefore, A^2 = AB therefore, A^2 = AB - B^2 therefore, (A - B)(A + B) = B(A - B) divide both sides by the factor (A - B), and you get A + B = B since A = B, we can assume that A + (A) = (A) therefore, 2A = A divide both sides by the factor (A), and you get 2 = 1 QED, 2 = 1

fyi, there is no mathematical form error, and no error of logic in that paragraph, and saying so will only enforce the worlds view of you as a paranoid, manic old man--66.102.74.51 19:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, I have no idea what that little tirade has to do with anything, but FWIW, the error in the "2 = 1" proof above is in the step where it divides both sides of the equation by (A - B). Since we already said A = B, we therefore know A - B = 0.

So that step of the "proof" is not valid. Saw that when when I was about 12, heh... --Jaysweet 21:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC) The other error, which, co-incidentally, I saw when I was around 12, is that 0/0 doesn't equal 1, it is undefined. It would make sense for it to be variously: 0, infinity, 1, -infinity, and -1, just to mention a few —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.178.98 (talk) 01:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Or that you just threw in a -B^2 without subtracting it from the other side.128.211.243.43 (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Retention of Gene Ray article in recent Votes For Deletion review

Someone nominated the Gene Ray article for deletion recently, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gene Ray, but fortunately the outcome of the vote was to KEEP the article. As we know, this very Time Cube article itself has withstood deletion nominations FOUR TIMES. Congratulations to the wise users who suitably preserved the 4-corner valuable Gene Ray article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimeCubeGuy (talk • contribs)

I just noticed that this is used in one of the WP guides (possible WP:UNDUE) as a canonical example of pseudoscience. For that reason alone I am glad it's here. :-)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Salimfadhley (talk • contribs) 13:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Umm, scuse me . . .

Sorry, but I couldn't help noticing that someone got rid of the links to Gene Ray parodies and Cubicao.tk here. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.158.206.61 (talk • contribs)

The links were deleted because they do not meet the criteria for inclusion. Silly rabbit 16:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Really? Look fine to me. On topic, informative, funny in some cases. Can you be more specific? Maury 21:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with User:212.158.206.61 and Maury. The links need to be included on the page. The criteria for inclusion allow for pertinent links with high-quality relevant information, which would certainly include Gene Ray's 3 auxiliary websites and the CubicAO site. Yes, I think these links definitely need to remain in the article.
No objections from me. Silly rabbit 21:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
CubicAO is like, the most advanced site on the subject. It's also the most informative link in the article barring the original Time Cube, and should never be removed. Maurog 05:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I definitely agree with Maurog's advice to retain the CubicAO link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.114.70 (talk • contribs)

To those that argue in favour of adding Cubicao as a link, I would like to point out that Gene Ray serveral times have stated that the site contains errors and has many misconceptions of what Time Cube is. In the case of time cube, where there is zero serious academic research, Gene Ray is the only one who can be considered an "reliable source", and that source says that cubicao is not correct in its presentation of "the theory". So why should it be included? Last time i checked "for the entertainment value" was not a WP policy. Tranqulizer (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hugely Controversial?

A relatively new addition to this article: "His support of homicide and extremely offensive, xenophobic and derogatory comments about religion and ethnicities such as the black and Jewish people make the site hugely controversial in the academic world and out."

Wouldn't the site have to be taken seriously by significant number of people before it could be considered controversial for any reason? I don't think racism and bigotry are the craziest things on that site, even though they could certainly be the most offensive. This needs a reference to the controversy in question, or it should be removed from the article (or altered appropriately). Prgrmr@wrk 00:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Second that. Also, I removed the "extremely offensive" part, simply because it's not true... if I'm not offended despite being a Jew, it's safe to surmise many others are not offended either. And since we lost the "as viewed by some people" comment some time ago, this was weasel wording and just had to go. • Maurog • 07:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Also agree - I do not think there is anything hugely controversial about this article. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I just read a bit on his site, and was surprised to see this: "CATASTROPIC WARNING - Obama must resign to save his people from his catastrophe. SUN power will not allow any Black Skin power to rule over its Light Domain." When one reads the Wikipedia article, you'd come to think this guy is just slightly nuts and maybe even a genious; but apparently he is extremely racist. I'd think that a mention of this racism would be relevant in the article.Joostschouppe (talk) 07:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Odd wording here

Take this bit of the article (I've added my comments in the non-indented parts)

Also, Ray's use of the word "simultaneous" does not appear to refer to a meaning other than the accepted one.

Firstly, the wording here is messy. If his use of simultaneous "does not appear to refer to a meaning other than the accepted one", isn't it easier to just say "appears to refer to the accepted usage"? And, if he is using a word normally, is that really noteworthy anyway?!

And then this:

However, he fails to make any logically coherent explanation as to how different periods of time that are taking place "simultaneously"

Are they really "different periods of time"? I thought they were different places at the same time that somehow get all added up together? Personally, I think this is better:

However, he does not make a logically coherent explanation as to why four different places occurring simultaneously should have their time added up to give four-times the accepted value.

How do these edits sound? 81.5.150.113 18:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Embedded page at the bottom of timecube.com

I noticed that as I was sitting on www.timecube.com, reading all the rambling, the page keeps reloading something. Upon further investigation, I discovered a tiny obscured iframe at the very bottom of the page. The page inside the iframe is a simple document that refreshes every 5 seconds and has another iframe inside it. The inner iframe has this YouTube video page in it. From what I can tell, it is a poorly-faked video of a "real witch" performing magic. I guess the intention is to get a ridiculous amount of hits on the video's page. The video was uploaded by a Linda Errol.

I wonder: is this notable and relevant to the Time Cube article? Does this provide further evidence that the whole thing is an intentional hoax? Perhaps a mention of it somewhere would be appropriate, what do you all think? --DJ Phazer 05:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Nah, in any case it's OR, and besides, you don't know if it's really timecube's intention or someone has hacked the page to produce link spam. If it gets mention in the press or something (not a chance), then it's a whole different story. • Maurog • 09:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Both TimeCube.com and CubicAO.tk contain this iframe, which causes the entire page to redirect to YouTube in Mozilla Firefox. Since it is known that the webmaster of CubicAO.tk has administrative access to TimeCube.com, it is possible that he or someone associated with him created the iframe/redirect. Another possibility is that both sites were hacked by a third party. --Nat 22:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


he's clearly a great mind form another reality trapped in our non-cubic universe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.145.187 (talk) 02:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

As true as that may be, it hardly belongs in this section. 137.122.31.11 (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed on followers?

I have removed the {{fact}} tag on "There appear to be some who claim to understand and follow Ray's views." It's quite an established fact. Check out [1], the blog of CubicAO, and you will find quite a few enthusiasts going at it like there's no tomorrow. I think some of them even meet Gene Ray and get his approval on what they're doing at times. Seriously, if the guy who added the tag wants me to link some refs to that sentence, I will, but won't that achieve the opposite of what he intended to do? • Maurog • 11:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh, we're all on the same team here, mate. A "fact" tag is a way of saying, "Hey, I don't know for sure whether this is true or not, but I don't think we can keep it for very long without a reference." So please do add those references! <eleland/talkedits> 17:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I hate to be a policy nazi on this, but if you link to a blog showing that somebody appears to follow this guy, that is technically original research. There needs to be a reliable 3rd-party source that says this guy has followers. --Jaysweet 17:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's out of line to say something like, "Some webloggers claim to understand and follow Ray's views." Granted, we are still making the call on our own that these blogs are somehow relevant or significant, but if that's OR it's the teeniest bit of OR and I think we should just let it go. Ray is an Internet phenomenon, after all, and you wouldn't expect extensive treatment of his lunacy in reliable sources. <eleland/talkedits> 19:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Those are weasel words, which is arguably about as bad. The claim should be cited or removed. Xihr 19:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
and you wouldn't expect extensive treatment of his lunacy in reliable sources EXACTLY. All the more reason not to treat it extensively here, beyond mentioning that it exists, that it is an internet meme, and that it is total crap.
Allow me to confess a little bias here. I think that containing and quarantining Ray's views is not just a matter of Wikipedia quality, I think it is a matter of PUBLIC HEALTH, i.e. public mental health. If Wikipedia does some OR to say that some people follow and believe this quack, there is the danger that someone will think that maybe some of it has some legitimacy. And if even one person starts to take this guy's ideas seriously, Wikipedia has made the world a worse place. Seriously. --Jaysweet 19:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
And in any case, there's actually a very good reason why Wikipedia does not allow OR of the nature of, "People posted X to this blog, therefore at least some people are saying X." It is to avoid WP:V and WP:UNDUE problems. It's not verifiable, because who says these blogs weren't created by Gene Ray himself? All I would have to do, then, to get any crackpot theory I want touted on Wikipedia, is make a website describing the theory, and a couple blogs agreeing with it. Secondly, even if the blogs are legit, without 3rd party reliable sources, there is the risk of giving undue weight. So yeah, a couple blogs agree with this guy. Ess Eff Double-Yoo. At least two dozen people think my old band was awesome. Should there be a Wikipedia article on that? What if they all start a blog talking about how awesome my band was?
I recognize I am wikilawyering a bit here to support a personal bias, but whether I'm gaming or not, the policies are pretty clear. --Jaysweet 14:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for deletion

This article is worthless and should be deleted, because it's really just one thing that needs to be said about Gene Ray: He suffers from schizophrenia. It's easy to see his writing as amusing when you read them on the net, but it's not - it's not funny for Gene's loved ones. By all accounts was once a quirky, creative inventor, but he's now completely lost in his own mind, and spends his days posting nonsense to the net and being ridiculed by university students.

Laughing at someone with schizophrenia is the net age's equivalent of laughing at a deformed man in a cage at a freak show. People who pretend to take him seriously and post "serious" articles like this are not funny IMO, just cruel.

There are also thousands of websites written by schizophrenia sufferers. There is nothing special about Gene Ray's, except that he, like Mike Corley before him, has become something of a net phenomenon. But unlike Corley (the man who spams usened groups with his tales of MI5 persecution), Gene Ray has done little to attract all this attention. He was set up for it by heartless people who pretended to take him seriously in order to make fun of him.

I repeat, there's nothing special about Gene Ray. If you know any technically literate person suffering from untreated schizophrenia, try googling their name: Very likely, you will find a site similar to Gene Ray's - probably a little less megalomaniac, and more paranoid, but every inch as crazy.

Previous requests for deletion have been based on that the theory is unscientific, or that Gene Ray is not notable. That's beside the point. The article should be deleted because it's part of a running prank against a seriously ill man. That a lot of people think this prank is fun, and participate in it, does not help - indeed, since it's clear that this article is for a large part a product of those pranksters, it's all the more reason to delete.

Vintermann (talk) 10:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

ps. I'm not mediawiki-savvy enough to figure out how to formally put up a fifth request for deletion. I'll appreciate your help.

The word schizophrenia does not even appear in the article, so you're clearly mistaken about something. Xihr (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
He didn't say the article says he's schizophrenic. It doesn't, probably for legal reasons. But he's right about the meanspiritedness of laughing at the disabled. Though appropriate medication would help Gene Ray more than deletion of the article. - Nunh-huh 02:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I find that Dr Gene Ray is 100% sane. These "schizophrenia" accusations (also "bipolar" accusations, and "ambulatory psychosis" accusations depending on which accuser you ask) are indeed false accusations, and they are slanders against Dr Ray, and are even "ad hominem" attacks designed to illegitimately discredit the rationally proven Time Cube Truth.
Now you have stated your conspiracy theories about a "prank" that you imagine to be taking place, and yet I find that even though some people have mocked and ridiculed Dr Ray, there are many who accept Time Cube and understand that Dr Ray's revelations are indeed logically valid absolute truths. (To see examples of these people who accept Time Cube, look in the section #Citation needed on followers? further down this talk page.) Thus I find that these "prank" claims are not a valid excuse to delete the article.
This article has withstood deletion attempts on four separate occasions--four is the supreme number of the universe. We find that there is no reason to delete it, and likely never will be. In fact, the article should be expanded to include greater detail, and a greater NPOV that balances Cubelessness with pro-Cubic arguments. Look in the article's history to see that in the past, such expansion has been attempted, but has been unjustly blocked by 1-corner Cubeless academician pharisees who maintain newspeak doublethought propaganda control over the wiki. The Cubeless overlord Jimbo Wales apparently refuses to offer us any salvation. We can only hope for a better future, one of 4-corner Cubic harmony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimeCubeGuy (talk • contribs)
Whether something is 'cruel' or not is completely irrelevant to having an article about it. I'm sure that some might call the article about Star Wars Kid cruel, because that was an extremely embarassing moment in his life. Does that mean there shouldn't be and article? Hell no. It's notable and deserves one, as is Time Cube, even if the guy who devised it is a total whackjob and his idea is retarded. Also, I suggest you ignore TimeCubeGuy. He's a loon too. Popisfizzy (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

hey timecubeguy

PLEASE prove to me you at not yourself in fact Gene Ray

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.46.213.141 (talk) 11:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

He can not required to prove his identity - fortunately actions speak louder than words in a talk: page - observe his editing history and make up your own mind. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Long-term revert war between two anons

Hi. Can someone look into this? If you look at the the edit history, you will see that two anons have been fighting over like, a sentence. They constantly argue between whether it should be "Ray spoke" or "Ray lectured to students", and they constantly add/remove "For more information, see article Gene Ray." Can someone try to resolve this conflict? I'm not sure what to do about it, but clearly revertwarring like this is not productive, even if a revert may happen a day or more after a previous revert. We need a solution. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 16:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The user on the 72.72.x.x IP is me, and the other one is definitely TimeCubeGuy. My browser refuses to store cookies for Wikipedia, so I tend to forget to log back in. Anyways, most additions by TimeCubeGuy have been reverted, mainly because they're extraneous or just trying to promote Time Cube as though it's a valid theory, when it's really just mindless babble. I keep reverting it because I find it rather impossible to lecture someone on something that isn't even coherent with reality, while trying to present it as such. As well, if you go to Gene Ray's article, the "more information" is just a rehashing of what you'll just find in this article, so there is no more information, contrary to what it claims. Popisfizzy (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Theory of everything?

Does time cube really qualify as a theory of everything? It doesn't even begin to try and describe, well, any physical phenomena. The most it tries to go for is some terribly incorrect description of rotating objects, which does little to try and explain things like the four fundamental forces, space, time, energy, matter, etc. I'm not sure it should really be described as such in the article. Popisfizzy (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The author declares it to be a theory of everything, so that's why it's written like that in the article. Yes, Timecube is nonsensical, but that's what the author claims it to be. -- Kesh (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, so he did. I s'pose I should've checked that before making this, then. 72.72.196.2 (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Evil

Seeing as he apparently killed himself, I copied both pages of the website into word and did a count of "evil," since apparently someone thought the number needed to be in the article. Current, and apparently standing, total is 273. 24.252.195.3 (talk) 03:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it was not Gene Ray who killed himself but a follower of time cube in his early 20s who was webmaster of cubicao. Tranqulizer (talk) 01:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
cubicao? do you have a link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.17.138 (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense

Wikipedia:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves. There is no reason at all to actually assert that time cube is "nonsense", other than for our beloved crowd of complete dicks who got lost trying to find SkepDic and ended up editing here to get their daily ego boosts for being allowed to POV-push. It's really rather obvious that it's nonsense from all the sourcable material in the article, but these "fringe" articles which label ideas as "nonsense" and repeat bullshit like "there is no scientific evidence to support this claim" 20 times in the same sentence really make my blood boil. Grow the fuck up. The scientific community don't give a shit about these theories. Write your defamatory bullshit somewhere else which isn't an encyclopedia. Zomg fringe eleven (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course the scientific community takes no notice of a scientifically illiterate theory! That's exactly what the article needs to convey; to suggest it is otherwise is to violate NPOV. - Nunh-huh 19:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
First off, please calm down. You're not likely to persuade anyone by insults and swearing. Secondly, it's patent nonsense. It doesn't make sense. It's not defamatory, it's pretty clear that TimeCube is nonsensical. -- Kesh (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
At the risk of feeding the trolls, might I point out that someone whose first comment on a Wikipedia talk page includes the phrase "grow the fuck up" probably themselves also needs to grow the fuck up. Just an observation... --Jaysweet (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE would be appropriate here. To not clearly establish that this is in essence universally considered a crackpot theory is to violate WP:NOR. And probably the vast majority of apparent supporters are doing so tongue-in-cheek, as many parody pages have popped up over the years. Xihr (talk) 05:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't really see the argument here. This article looks like it definitely has some NPOV problems. I don't see anything here on the talk page that seems to indicate that this page has had some NPOV vote in the past so I am adding an NPOV tag at least to the first section which seems most inappropriate. The language used is not at all typical for an encyclopedia article, no matter how far out the ideas may be.RShnike (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Quotes of note: "proposed theory of everything," "occasional black-and-white drawings, obscure statements, and rather unconventional grammar," "The concept is nonsense and lacks testable hypotheses." That seems to be the most egregious. I will correct the article later if I remember to return to it or if any objections can be reasonably made.RShnike (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The short answer is that the only reason this page has survived the various AfDs is the agreement that it is the webpage and the "internet culture phenomenon" aspects of Time Cube that are notable, not the theory itself; thus the page documents (or should document) the website itself, and the cultural phenomenon surrounding that. Thus dicussion of unconventional grammar, website style, etc. are entirely on topic, since those are the notable points of Time Cube. -- Leland McInnes (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Probably quite true and worth mentioning perhaps. The descriptions of the page itself, if what you are saying is accurate, would tend not to bother me. But the other two quotes and the general tone are still a bit biased. As long as this page exists it should be the content of the article that reflects the "internet culture's" view of his work and not the tone of the article, which means that the theory's role in meme needs to be fleshed out a bit more. I see that the bottom sections of the article describe the theory in a quite typical fashion. As of now I would only maintain that the "proposed" line and the "nonsense" line are inappropriate. If you have any reason to explain the tone of these two lines I'd be happy to hear it. Thanks for clearing up the third one.RShnike (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the Gene Ray article?

Gene Ray Now apparently redirects here. Was there any consensus for a merge? And if so shouldn't material from the gene ray article be merged in here? Tranqulizer (talk) 11:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it was speedily deleted on the 19th of April, for being a "pure attack page or negative unsourced". I agree that a merge was probably due, but I don't know what discussion there was on its talk page prior to that, or what information we lost in the process. --McGeddon (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The obvious question

Judging from the over-the-top writing style, the "time cube" concept is a parody of the "theory of everything", not an actual attempt at hashing out such a theory, just as this is not about a serious public health threat. Does anyone else think so, and should it be mentioned in the article? -- DataSnake my talk 20:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That'd be nice, but unfortunately Ray is far more serious about the subject than this. At first blush it may seem a joke, but it's awfully clear he doesn't mean it that way.  Xihr  07:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17

Is there a particular motivation for the link to Peirce's quincuncial projection? I don't see the point, beyond humorous effect, and suggest its removal. Strangename (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC).

Should the spawn of parody websites be covered here? Sites such as this one. --Luisdanielmesa (talk) 08:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Not unless reliable sources have noted those specific parodies. We don't need lots of joke sites piggybacking off the article. Thymecube did make me smile but it is only a 1 page site and I can't see it being worth a mention. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Err, not to state the obvious... timecube is a one page site. --Luisdanielmesa (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Not to state the obvious, but timecube is NOT a one-page site. Scroll to the bottom of the first page. There is a link to "NEXT PAGE" and if you click that link you get another huge swath of the same mentally ill and racist twaddle. At the bottom of the second page there are links to MORE pages, including specifically anti-Jewish material. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 05:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Solution as a interpretation of Time Zones

The "4 days in a single rotation" has nothing to do with a rotation lasting 4*24 hours, instead he's interpreting four semi-hemispheres as experiencing their own individual "days" which are also simultaneous. However, one could take this idea out further with prisms of higher order, and arrive at something like Time Zones or further until the count of sides approaches infinity and the analysis becomes one of continuous mapping rather than a discreet one. In short, he's being esoteric by exploiting people's popular misunderstanding of the Calculus.

Anyone who thinks he's being "smart" needs to just go learn some Maths and how to think about more interesting things. 70.247.161.166 (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Religious material

I feel that Ray's religious beliefs need to be represented in this article. They're so strongly represented on Timecube and its sister sites that there needs to be some material on them. His beliefs are interestingly weird in and of themselves, and I feel their inclusion could be done objectively and without falling into speculation. And the article certainly feels incomplete without them. Fumoses (talk) 15:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Subjective POV and Citations needed

First of i need to say- yes, it does appear that gene ray is a crank. The inserted picture from his website made me lol.

BUT - that doesnt mean that this article is acceptable. It reads as very subjective and independant research. We wouldnt tolerate this sort of write up on anyone else- why should we allow this unreferenced sarcastic diatribe?

i started adding {fact} to individual lines, but stopped because there were so many unreferenced claims, so i tagged the whole article as citations missing. i also added the {pov} tag --Brunk500 (talk) 08:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Racial theories

I'm not sure, but when I was reading through his websites for some laughs, I found some odd racial opinions of Ray's, maybe they should be mentioned?

"Christianity is subservient to the Jews. The Bible is Jewish, Academia and Government based upon the Jewish Bible are Jewish."

"Racial integration equals "Racial Slop"."

From http://www.abovegod.com/

He seems to have his pages peppered with rather racist statements like this. Pstanton 22:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)

The charge of "racism" is misplaced, I think. Ray believes there are four races in the world (white, black, yellow, and brown, or something like that), each of which ought to remain in its own corner and avoid mixing. He never says his own race is superior. (I add in passing that as a race-mixe, I myself fall under his condemnations.) As for anti-Semitism, his comments about "Jewish" lies amount to a condemnation of the Bible and its God (for maintaining that each day contains one day).--Bei Dawei —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.165.205.69 (talk) 10:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't look very "misplaced" to me:
That's basically saying Obama shouldn't be president because he's black. If that's not racist, what is? Dendodge TalkContribs 23:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Then it's not Ray who is racist, it's the sun! (Sigh) You're right, the text is full of things that would sound racist to most people. However, Ray somewhere (please don't ask me to scroll through and find it!) denies being a racist. While I can't quite fathom what the above quote means, it might simply go along with his idea that the races ought to remain geographically separated. Is that racism? Well, maybe--but it would apply to whites in Africa as well as blacks in America. (Equal-opportunity racism?) It does not sounds as though he wishes any harm to Obama. The "dumb, ignorant" line refers to us! --Bei Dawei
Not sure how any of that absolves him of a charge of racism. He's discriminating based on racial groups; he need not claim that one is superior or inferior to be espousing racist views. Equal opportunity racism is still that: racism. 24.218.204.8 (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of the apparent offensiveness of his comments, speculation about whether he is or isn't racist is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. If you want to comment on his alleged racist tendencies or comments, then you need to find reliable, third party sources that make these claims. Otherwise they are wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia; Wikipedia reports what other reliable sources say is true; it isn't supposed to make judgements on its own.  Xihr  07:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
The above point is total bull. You don't need third party sources to say something is racist when the website itself is racist. Cls14 (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to break it to you, but that's just not how Wikipedia works. See WP:NOR, WP:V.  Xihr  07:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure people here actually understand what the word "racist" means. We're not arguing about whether or not Gene Ray is a mean person, or whether or not he thinks nasty thoughts about black people. Ray believes in a system in which certain ethnic groups have certain properties which other ethnic groups lack, and vice versa, and that these properties should determine power relations between ethnic groups (who gets to be president, who gets to marry whom, etc.) This is, in fact, the definition of racism ("a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others" [[2]]). It would be inappropriate for an encyclopedic article to condemn Ray for his beliefs or to otherwise cast moral judgment on him, but characterizing his theories as "racist" is simply being accurate. At any rate, Ray's racial theories are certainly notable in any article about him and his work on Time Cube, and should be on this page - in fact, their deliberate omission here is kind of questionable, given the amount of time Ray spends decrying things like racial integration and intermarriage. Fumoses (talk) 15:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

No reference to racism?

It seems odd that the article doesn't seem to have any reference to racism, reading the site (especially the recent parts) it seems like there is quite a lot of racist material there. 152.78.174.6 (talk) 15:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I am surprised that the article doesn't mention this. In fact, I do not understand why a lot of the information from this older version is not included. I understand that one user made a big effort to make the page look just the way he wanted, etc., and that isn't a good thing. However, a lot of the information mentioned there seems to be quite relevant. (When I first read the arbitration discussion at the top of this page, I expected that link to take me to a page that clearly tried to extol the virtues of Time Cube theory, or something of the sort, but that doesn't seem to be the case at all.) I feel that I am missing something. :\ Nihixul (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)#

The racist stuff is fairly new and is totally unrelated to his original writings. Or, if related, he originally veiled his racism so thickly that it was not readily discernible. The racist stuff deserves as much mention as anything else, and currently has none. 24.218.204.8 (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I personally think Sarah Palin is an idiot. Should I demand that her WikiPedia entry state that she's idiotic? Frankly, I have a lot more proof (and citations from other sources) that Sarah Palin is an idiot than you have that Time Cube is racist. I guess I just don't get why there's this "Destroy the Timecube Entry" movement among some of you. Seems like you could live your entire lives without even acknowledging that the Time Cube site (or this entry on it) exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.33.202.98 (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

New material

Ok, this guy is obviously a crank - but I have added a short section to the article relating to the claims he makes which are not so nutty, and conform more to conventional thinking. They may be a little "truth before verifiability" and possible OR, but I'm sure a little re-writing could make them more acceptable. Please don't delete them immediately - I think they're worth having to provide a little balance! Caseykcole (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

$10,000 or $1000

The article say that the prize for disproving Time Cube dropped from $10,000 to $1,000 - but the timecube.com site is still offering $10,000 specifically to Wikipedians for disproving the theory. So I guess that $1,000 number is wrong.

But there is a problem here. It bothers me that the Time Cube site is reacting to what we say here - and what we say here relates to what that website says. Are we now creating the facts that we're supposed to be documenting? We're supposed to strive to avoid self-reference. SteveBaker (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ohh no! the time-space continuum is gonna rip!!! Lol. I see an infinity mirror coming. He's a nut-job who's probably never traveled and doesn't know about timezones or even that a cube has 6 sides not 4. Sorry, had to let it out after reading so much non-sense. I propose the whole article be deleted because it contains original research not verifiable by any third party. He's talking about us talking about him, ad infinitum. Luisdanielmesa (talk) 08:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Relax everyone. The way round this is to try to write about the subject based on what other reliable sources say about it and avoid overcoverage of this minor subject. We don't need to delete it, just keep it in perspective.
As for the notional prize, if he says he offers $10,000 then that is what we report. We don't need to mention Wikipedia specifically. Anybody can be a Wikipedian so the higher prize is notionally available to anybody (although it remains unwinnable because Time Cube is not a meaningful theory that has anybody can prove or disprove). It is natural that he is excited by Wikipedia's coverage. It is the second search hit on "time cube" and we are the closest thing to mainstream academia that has shown any long term interest in him. We do not have to be excited about his interest in us.
Regarding his talk of a cube having 4 sides, my understanding is that he regards the top and bottom as not constituting "sides". Of course, we all know that a cube has 6 identical faces irrespective of orientation but his understanding seems to be rooted in the vernacular where a square room has 4 walls, a floor and a ceiling. In his case all 6 of these may well be padded.
--DanielRigal (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The Time Cube's 4 corners are Abitrary. Why stop at 4? Why not 360 degrees?

I wanted to put this in the article but I can't figure out how to articulate it. Basically, people get at what he's saying with the four corners thing. At first it's like "Wha?" but then everybody sees what he's getting at. The thing he doesn't realize is that time and measurement in general is just something the human race agreed upon. If we decided to count four corners as individual days we'd have done that by now. By why stop at four? Why not 8 or 16 or 360–one for each degree? It's just like how we decided that a day was 24 hours. If this was a perfect measurement there would be no need for daylight saying time or leap year or leap days.

It's all stuff we made up, just like he made up his stuff BASED ON ALREADY MADE UP STUFF! It's made up stuff we agree on but I digress.

Before timezones everyone had it's own time... trains started being late (and crashing with each other) as soon as those rails were set in place. It's close to what Vvvhellovvv said below; everyone had it's time. A city 400km away from another would have a difference in the wall-clock time. We managed to agree to "MAKE UP STUFF" to help our communication systems work. On the 360 degree note, we could also use various other angle measurement alternative units., but we would still need some degree of daylight saving. Daylight saving is a way to overcome the effect of the tilt of the earth as it moves around the sun, which makes days (and nights) not of equal duration (day length) throughout the year (except on two occasions, each called equinox). You could have "perfect measurement" of time, but you would still be stuck with the varying daylight amounts. Cheers.--Luisdanielmesa (talk) 09:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

So yeah, I wanted to put something like that in the criticism section. But understand I don't think he's necessarily a crackpot (at least not for the 4 day thing) I simply think all he's doing is re-inventing the wheel with this. We already decided how we want to measure an earth rotation. An in fact, the time cube would mean having two watches, one for time cube time (six hour intervals) and one for earth time(24 hours). But again, I don't mean criticism like he's crazy or even dumb, just really really really misguided.Utils (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not speculation. We don't, and shouldn't be, deciding on anything. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I think what you meant to say was "Wikipedia is supposed to be based on reliable sources, not speculation". The more I edit on Wikipedia, the more I realize how much of it is crap. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing Wikipedia's flaws or otherwise. Talk pages are for discussing issues with this page specifically. General discussions about wikipedia can be addressed to the village pump or Wikipedia Review. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
You are quite right. My appologies. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually about the 4 corners and why not 360 degrees, ray seems to have something with the number 4. I read in this interview (http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1084027) that he thinks 16 isn't even real, since it's just four fours... and he says everything has 4 corners and four sides and you don't count the top or bottom since you can't lean on the ceiling or floor... Sounds like flawed logic to me. SebDaMuffin (talk) 07:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
The only approach is just to document what he says and what reliable sources say about him. If we have a good source showing that he denies that 16 is real then that is probably worth including but it is best not to think too hard about what, if anything, it might actually mean. Quite apart from it being Original Research to use any such speculations in the article, it is probably not healthy to try to analyse this stuff. It's not like Wikipedia can afford to fund treatment if any editors have a mental breakdown. ;-) --DanielRigal (talk) 11:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The 4 corners thing is completely arbitrary; you could easily argue that there are 7 days in 1 "evil Greenwich" day using Ray's "logic". Just put 7 people equidistant on the equator, and each of them will experience one day in a full rotation. According to Ray, that makes 7 days. But really, there must be a day for each person on earth, so there are actually billions of days everyday. Vvvhellovvv (talk) 07:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)vvvhellovvv

You're totally right. There are indeed billions of days. Everybody lives in their own universe. :) Utils (talk) 07:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Article by Bei Dawei

I removed this as it does not appear to be a reliable source according to WP:RS. It is up to anyone adding a source to show that it matches our criteria. I can find very little mention of this journal, let alone evidence it's a reliable source. The AfD suggests it was by a student - WP:Articles for deletion/Time Cube (4th nomination), although he is now an associate professor at the university. Presuming this is Bei Dawei, at [3] he says "it is technically "peer-reviewed", but not necessarily by experts on that subject (whatever this one would be, I don't know--popular culture I guess). Also, the revised versions don't get re-reviewed. I do recall one reviewer saying that it should be set apart somehow from the other articles in the journal, to show that it was done a bit tongue-in-cheek, but that suggestion wasn't followed." and "I have to say I was feeling a bit cynical about the whole academic thing when I wrote it. (My university wants me to write articles, but doesn't much care what they're about.) The poster who accuses me of not perceiving irony should realize that I was smiling the whole time I wrote it. ". I can't find any other articles by him. So how does this qualify as a source? Dougweller (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Point of personal privilege...? I assure you that the article is "reliable" in the sense that everything in it that is presented as fact (for example, quotes and so on) really is factual, to the best of my knowledge and ability. This isn't a fake article like "The Onion." I have done my best to fairly summarize Dr. Ray's views, notwithstanding my admittedly dubious motivation in taking up the project, and attitude while writing it. If anything, it is my interpretation of Ray's significance which takes the most liberties. Yes, there are serious problems with Taiwan's system of journal refereeing, including at my university, but that should not affect the issue of whether this is a reliable source. On the other hand, much of it is out of date by now (for example, there are many more commentarial sites), and I would not object if editors here think the Wikipedia article would be better without it. --Bei Dawei—Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.165.204.107 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 13 August 2009

WP:BLP concerns

This has been bugging me for a while. This article calls Gene Ray a "crank" and cites a tabloid newspaper as its source. I cannot find the article online but according to the footnote on our article, the article states "YES, the guy's mad - but at least he's not boring. Check out the Time Cube rants". WP:BLP concerns aside, the source doesn't appear to support the statement "Though he is often dismissed as a crank". Based on the footnote, we could say "The Daily Mirror referred to Gene Ray as mad". But given WP:BLP, I'm wondering if the phrase "Though he is often dismissed as a crank" should be removed entirely. The rest of the sentence still works without this phrase. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with you if wikipedia didn't already have this article describing him very well. Ban Bridges (talk) 05:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

-1*-1 = -1

In his defense, there are consistent mathematical systems that use -1*-1 = -1 as a postulate instead of -1*-1 = 1. The modern convention took about three hundred years (mid 1500s to mid 1800's, see "Negative Math" by Alberto A. Martínez pg 18 ) to establish and historically was a persistent point of confusion. Although I doubt if he's aware of these formal systems. Pulu (talk) 22:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Only in the sense that pretty much any trivial equation involving a product can be redefined as such. Given some ring with identity, define n as per convention by n = 1+1+1...+1 n times (or -1 -1 -1 -1... -1 (-n) times if n is written negatively). Of course, this is not the default meaning and it's NOT what he's referring to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.145.33.183 (talk) 22:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Notable?

How is this page even notable enough to warrant a separate article? 83.25.99.186 (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

IMHO it is notable enough. If for no other reason than to distinguish the english wikipedia from the german wikipedia. What's worth more? The savings on some disk space, even it it was on the order of some GB, or the freedom of knowledge, even if it was for some crackpot opinions? 93.132.179.189 (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I stated my concern because this may become a silly precedent. I dont think wikipedia should be index of everything internet has to offer - there are millions of tiny silly pages out there with no meaningful content. Should we make articles about each and every one of these? Only some? Which? 83.25.63.193 (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
To help editors with those types of questions, Wikipedia has a series of notability guidelines. The generic notability guideline is at WP:N, and the website/web-content guideline is at WP:WEB. Of course, all articles must also conform with our policy on verifiability using reliable sources. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
He's one of the most notable of the Internet crackpots. If Hampster Dance can have an article, then Time Cube can... AnonMoos (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
The notability of the subject of one wiki page cannot be used to justify the notabily of the subject of another wiki page. In my opinion, this one is non-notable. Mental illness with an idee fixee is hardly notable. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 05:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Time Cube has been on WikiPedia for almost as long as WikiPedia has existed, and it hasn't resulted in the end of the Universe yet. Just calm down already. Time Cube is listed because it's amusing, and it's been around forever. It's taking up maybe 50k of hard drive space. The Internet will survive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.33.202.98 (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Cancer?

I went to Timecube and searched for the cancer reference. The only instance of the word "cancer" on the first two pages was in the sentence "YOU CAN"T KILL ME, FOR I AM 82 + CANCER." I then googled "timecube cancer", and found an interview here: [4] , where Gene Ray says that Cancer is his star sign. Timecube doesn't generally go for astrological symbolism, as far as I can recall, but with the general level of incoherence, who knows? I'm rewriting the sentence to reflect the ambiguous nature of the information. 75.80.154.67 (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This was obvious original research and I have removed it. In any event, the article is about the site, not the writer. GDallimore (Talk) 09:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Psychology

Hasn't anyone studied Ray and his writings from a psychiatric perspective? --129.33.1.37 (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC) user:Tysto can't be bothered to log in

Psychiatrically there is not much to study. Outside of his odd philosophy, he is a very normal old man. 38.112.4.154 (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Insanity manifests in less extreme ways than insisting on being Napoleon Bonaparte. Apparently many insane patients have a perfectly internally consistent system of logic/morality/w/e that is merely unfit to functioning in the society. He's got one and he's screaming it out at the top of his metaphorical lungs. Okay, not so much "less extreme" here.

Fanatical adherence to a completely bizzarre philosophy he made up from the whole cloth not proven or backed by any genuine branch of science or mathematics. Insistence on being the target of conspiracies. Apparent delusions of self-importance. Right now I'm regretting I posted this response to start with, so let's just say that I think his own theories are proof enough about the author. Mind, I don't believe in a uniform definition of "sanity", only different degrees of madness. :) --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Journey connection

I wonder if there is a connection between Time Cube and Time 3, an album by Journey whose title is pronounced as "Time Cubed". Since Time 3 was released several years before Ray created his website, it would have to be Ray naming his website after the album, not Journey naming their album after Ray's website. Maybe Gene Ray is a Journey fan, or perhaps the album inspired him to create his theory? I haven't read the entire website; did Gene Ray ever refer to Journey in his rantings, by any chance? Stonemason89 (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No idea. But you can always ask him. His e-mail address is listed on his web site. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Who cares? This is not a chat site.  Xihr  00:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Is TimeCube pseudoscience?

I don't think I agree with this edit here.[5] If TimeCube isn't pseudoscience, then what is? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Crackpot ramblings with no relevance to science, pseudo or otherwise. Simple solution is to find a reliable source that makes the characterisation. GDallimore (Talk) 22:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
But WP:FRINGE specifically states that we don't need a reliable source to classify something as pseudoscience. In fact, it even mentions Time Cube by name: "Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more." I'm very puzzled by the removal of these categories from the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I've taken it up at fringe. Rubbish like this does not deserve such a categorisation. Amazingly, it gives it more credence than it deservces. GDallimore (Talk) 23:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Given that no consensus has been reached at WP:FRINGE to change the guideline, I'm restoring the pseudoscience tags. I really don't care too much one way or another, but we should at least be consistent with WP:FRINGE and right now it says to put the pseudoscience tag on TimeCube. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the pseudoscience category as the arbcom decision that called this pseudoscience has been amended to remove that reference. The other two categories were clearly inappropriate for the reasons given in my edit summaries.
I would be happy to add back the pseudoscience cat if someone can find a source suggesting that there is any science in time cube. The website itself does not say it's science, it just says all science is wrong, which is not the same thing. GDallimore (Talk) 15:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't Bei Dawei's article suggest there's science in Time Cube? As for what's on the website, there are in fact claims of Time Cube being a scientific theory. For instance, Gene Ray states that "Wikipedia claim that the Time Cube is non-science constitutes a Grave error by the half-brain bastard who can't think opposite of the lies he was taught." and that "You educated stupid word animals can't fathom this greatest social and scientific math of creation." Woseph (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
That's circular. Wikipedia says it's not science, so time cube objects, giving wikipedia an excuse to confirm that it's pseudoscience? No thank you. Besides, what's "scientific math of creation"? It's gibberish, not science or pseudoscience. GDallimore (Talk) 12:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
It is not circular reasoning, the quotations disprove (in my opinion) your statement that "The website itself does not say it's science". Not too important though, I think, as we don't allow subjects to classify themselves. Woseph (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
And what article are you talking about? GDallimore (Talk) 12:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
"Proving Human Stupidity": Time Cube, Gnosis, and the Challenge of Radical Cosmology by Bei Dawei [6], published in Hsuan Chuang Humanities Journal. It's been discussed a lot before, and was also mentioned in our article (before a deletionist went crazy on it again). Woseph (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Nice little article. I'm assuming it was removed as a source for being self-published? Shame. However, a search for "scie" within the text provides only 8 hits, most of which are quotes from ray saying science is a lie or scientists are stupid, which doesn't help here.
The closest to purporting to be science are a few paragraphs which begin with the statement that ray's words are "seemingly scientific" and go on to say that Ray says his conclusions are scientific. That almost does it for me, but if you read the article between those quotes, the article actually supports my position that Ray's ideas are more a form of twisted philosophy which Ray holds to be objectively true. I understand this to mean that Ray thinks his ideas are compatible with science, without being scientific themselves. This would be true of a number of liberal, non-literal readings of the bible, but these wouldn't be called pseudoscience; only creation science which perverts science to its own ends obtains that label.
All in all, I think this article supports my position that Time Cube is more about philosophy (in its message) and sociology (in the social-network Internet response) than it is about science and I'm now looking into suitable social categories that might be used along those lines. GDallimore (Talk) 18:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea why it was deleted. The Time Cube article was really good at one time, but now almost nothing remains of it. I don't think Dawei's article was self-published; someone claiming to be Bei Dawei posted here, saying it was peer-reviewed, see archive 12. This [7] might be submission information (from [8]), but I have no idea what it says. As for (psuedo-) science or not, how do you interpret (in context): "Who is to say what art, what literature, what science deserves our attention and respect? Given that publishing, education, and scientific research have become industries with their own interests distinct from those of ordinary people, let alone some idealized purpose; and given that ours is an age of decentralization of authority and the deconstruction of canons, should we not widen our gaze to include these formerly unnoticed intellectual forms?"? Woseph (talk) 22:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

According to http://eng.hcu.edu.tw/front/bin/ptdetail.phtml?Part=fll01 Bei Dawei is an Associate Professor at Hsuan Chuang University, specializing in a number of fields, but leading with Philosophy. Now, while we'll probably agree Time Cube doesn't really fit neatly into any specific field, I'd argue strongly that it is at least a Philosophy. And while I'm not quite sure what Associate Professor means in Taiwan, in the US, it seems to mean A mid-level, usually tenured, professor. So all things considered, this seems to be a reasonable expert writing in his area of specialty, and he's not making any particularly controversial claims, he's mainly doing a reading of Time Cube and responses to it. I think http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/journal/files/CAS/CAS0206.pdf is a perfectly fine paper for purposes of this article. --GRuban (talk) 07:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

who says this "illustrates a recurring theme"

The Maine Campus article does in its third paragraph.[9] Again, perhaps it needs a rewrite, but it is supported by the source. I don't feel like wasting my time on this silly article but it is discouraging to see these inappropriate tags slapped on here, perhaps in an attempt to make some kind of point. Dlabtot (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Opinions need attributions, not just a citation. The casual reader needs to know whose opinion he's been given. The "someone is saying" approach is weasel and a breach of the manual of style.--Scott Mac 19:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
That's why I said it should be rewritten to match what the source says instead of having an inappropriate tag put on it. Dlabtot (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
So be bold and fix it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I can't be bothered.--Scott Mac 19:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
If you can't be bothered to work to improve the article, please stop vandalizing it with inaccurate, disruptive tags. Dlabtot (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Pointing out issues isn't disruptive, particularly on a BLP. I won't stop that, no. If it annoys you then leave it for someone else to fix.--Scott Mac 20:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Scott Mac is correct. Identifying an issue and tagging it does not confer an obligation to fix the issue. ++Lar: t/c 01:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Somewhere is a policy or guideline (or perhaps an essay?) that says something about not to tag and run. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Which Scott Mac didn't do. He stuck around to explain what the issue is, through several posts. He's just not signing up to fix it himself, nor should he (or anyone in particular) have to. ++Lar: t/c 05:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

BRD - Claims of website containing racist ideologies

This citation is a weak claim to attribute racism to a project that is attributed to a living person. .. which includes some racist ideology. http://mainecampus.com/2004/09/24/timecubecom-where-reality-as-we-know-it-is-a-lie. This issue was brought up at the BLPN here and I agree. I removed it with this edit summary - removing racist claim, weak citation aand was reverted by User:GDallimore with the edit summary - revert bold removal of sourced material without good explanation. Off2riorob (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

BLP is not relevant here. It doesn't accuse Ray of being racist personally, it says the website has some racist content. GDallimore (Talk) 15:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Its a poor citation for any such claim and it does reflect on the living person. It add nothing of value, is the magazine a racist publication or known as a racist magazine , if not it should be removed, Is there another stronger citation that supports the claim? At the very least if it is not removed(which it should be) it should be attributed, as, (whoever it is), a college writer in a college magazine (or whatever it is ) opined that he thought the Cube included some racist ideology. Off2riorob (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any of that opinionated, badly proof-read edit you made being required by the BLP guideline. It had an inline citation to a source that appears to be reliable. If you're actually talking about NPOV, maybe we can have a sensible discussion, but your edits and motivations do not appear to be remotely based on the BLP guidelines. GDallimore (Talk) 18:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
The reviewer goes further than the "subtle little racist ideologies" phrase Off2riorob quotes - the full paragraph is that "If you continue to scroll down the endless page, you’ll notice subtle little racist ideologies. It builds and builds, until finally he explodes with “Integration is a racial slop, destroying all of the races.”"
The relevant sentence of the article is already saying that "The site has been criticised for...", it'd be redundant to add extra "this is the view of a critic" context around the racism at the end of the sentence. --McGeddon (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
The previous criticism is from another citation altogether and written by someone who has a degree of notability to his comment John C. Dvorak and I notice he does not mention racism at all. Are there any notable perople or citations that suggest this site has racist issues or is a racist site? I strongly suspect there are not. My rejection of this not notable persons opinion is in regards to the BLP concerns that his single opinion in so not notable and we should not put his allegations in the article without some stronger support from other much more reliable and notable sources. Yes the BLP concerns as to the way we are alleging through this not notable student writers opinion that there are racist aspects to the web site when the web site is directly attributed to a single person, and as I said the simple fact that this persons opinions are not in themselves notable in any way at all. Off2riorob (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Then quote the relevant part of the guideline. GDallimore (Talk) 22:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't need a quote, its undue opinion from a not notable person that is not supported with any mainstream citations or opinions from mainstream locations than his own single not notable opinion. Please comment as to why you think this persons opinion is worthy of perpetuating through this wikipedia? Perhaps you know he is an expect on racism or qualified in something related, or his opinions on similar issues have been reported in other wiki reliable locations, or his opinion is supported in some way by anyone else at all? Off2riorob (talk) 22:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The unknown Jonny briggs wrote in a student paper that he thinks the website has got racist ideologies, no one else commented and no one else reported the same opinion. Off2riorob (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't be sarcastic. The Maine Campus paper thought it worthwhile printing his opinion. Unless you have some evidence that this is an unreliable publication, everything else you have to say is irrelevant. And if you're going to say that BLP supports your edits, of course you have to quote the relevant part of the guideline. The fact is, BLP doesn't support your edits, so stop hiding behind it to further to personal agenda. GDallimore (Talk) 22:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
You also appear not to know the guidelines on verifiability. Notability, which you keep referring to, is not remotely relevant. Reliability is. GDallimore (Talk) 22:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Please don't personally attack me. The comment above is meant to expose to you what you are attempting to support. So if he is an expect on racism or qualified in something related, or his opinions on similar issues have been reported in other wiki reliable locations, or his opinion is supported in some way by anyone else at all? Off2riorob (talk) 22:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that the authorship doesn't matter - its the publication that matters, a point which you are continually overlooking. And there is not a single saying saying the site ISN'T racist, so the clear majority of sources supports the idea that it contains racist ideologies. GDallimore (Talk) 22:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
1-0 is not a "clear majority" in this context. Find other, more reliable, sources and use those. Or present the information in a way that lets the reader judge reliability for themselves, by wording it using an inline description of what was said, who said it, and where it was said. For impeccably reliable sources, footnoted references are fine, but for marginal ones like this the detail should be given. ++Lar: t/c 01:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)And finally, let's get to the point of verifiability. Is this an opinion which anyone would challenge? Does anyone challenge or are they likely to challenge that the statement "White people are not obligated to nurture the black race - when actually dark and light should exist on opposite corners of Earth as depicted by midday and midnight. The white race is actually stupid to give welfare and integrate with the Black Race, who in time will slaughter them" contains racist ideologies? GDallimore (Talk) 22:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Student newspapers print a lot of things. That doesn't mean we're forced to take note of them. That it can be sourced to something doesn't mean that it automatically deserves inclusion. If any random student's op-ed from any random school's paper has to be included...we're in for some interesting times ahead on multiple articles. I'd be surprised if the opinion couldn't be found elsewhere, but if this kid is the only one to comment on it, I don't see why we should care. --Onorem♠Dil 23:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea, just because you think this not notable persons comments in a student newspaper are correct does not make them worthy of propagation here. Authorship does matter, especially if that one racist claim is unsupported anywhere else, as such, it is a single controversial claim of a not notable person in a student newspaper and we should as such not allow his personal unsupported opinion be propagated through the wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
You still haven't answered the relevant question. What is there to suggest that The Maine Campus is unreliable? Unless you have evidence that it is unreliable, then it meets the criteria for inclusion. GDallimore (Talk) 23:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Again, that it can be sourced to something doesn't mean that it automatically deserves inclusion...whether the source is generally reliable or not. I'm not making a BLP argument on this, more a consensus one. Should we head to the beard article and add that "Having a beard is pretty sweet," or to the The University of Maine article to make note of it being a "stonerschool?" --Onorem♠Dil 23:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Off2riorob and others are correct. A lifestyle column in a student newspaper is not a reliable source. The entry cannot remain worded the way it was worded at the time of the AfD. An alternate wording that makes clear the source might just be acceptable, but the way it was... that was a BLP violation. The whole article is very poorly sourced. ++Lar: t/c 00:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
How can it be a BLP violation when the BLP guideline says none of this? GDallimore (Talk) 13:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
For starters all material must be reliably sourced. (second para of WP:BLP Be very firm about the use of high quality sources.) College newspapers, and especially columns in college newspapers, just are not reliable sources. As long as the wording indicates that this is the view of the writer of a lifestyle article in a college newspaper, the BLP concern of reliable sourcing is addressed (the way it was worded at the start of the AfD was unacceptable. The way it is worded as of the last time I checked is OK on that score). But that then raises an undue weight problem, absent more sources, this view isn't really worthy of inclusion (even if true, we go by verifiability and by preponderance, not truth, per WP:NPOV... find more sources rather than arguing the material contains the assertions). Also, you seem to be arguing against the apparent consensus here. When arguing for removal of something negative, that's a tenable position, as BLP trumps local consensus and supports removal of questionable material until the matter is resolved. But when arguing for inclusion of something negative, it does not. Hope that helps. Note also that the burden of evidence is on you, the restorer of material, not on the removers. ++Lar: t/c 13:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Right, finally someone who isn't just mouthing off their opinions so some sort of sensible discussion can be held. OK, why isn't a college paper reliable? It appears to have editorial overview and has a wide distribution not just among the students, but also faculty and other staff. Where is there any indication that they do not have a reputation for fact checking? This gives every indication of a quality publication irrespective of the fact that it is produced by students.
Then we have undue. Undue is about fairly representing significant views. ie, if it were a minority view that racist ideologies are mentioned on the website, then it would not be worth mentioning. But it does not work here because it is not a minority view. No other sources have been found to dispute this source in order to put it into the minority. Multiple sources are a requirement for notability, not for whether a fact is worthy of mentioning in an article. Also, as I've already said, this is not a fact which any reasonable person would dispute so a single source with no other sources which dispute it is perfectly adequate.
And finally npov, as a more generalised version of undue, also does not suggest removal either: views must be represented proportionately and we have one source saying there's racist ideology, none saying there isn't. So, proportionately, the viewpoint is a significant one.
Also, so far, there has been no conensus to remove it, so I am not argung against consensus. A load of people saying "oh, it's rude so it violates BLP" without giving any reasonable arguments (until you weighed in) are not arguments which can form a consensus but merely a force of numbers barrage. There's a huge difference and I will not bow to numbers without sensible arguments to back them up. GDallimore (Talk) 18:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, one more thing. Where in BLP does it say that a messy in-text mention of the source of the opinion is necessary rather than a simple inline citation which achieves exactly the same thing more succintly. Perversely, the way it is currently written with a paragraph devoted to the issue, is increasing the amount of weight given to the issue whereas before it was just one in a list of critcisms of this nutty website which has been criticised by everyone who comments on it. GDallimore (Talk) 19:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of further discussion, I will at least reword the currently misrepresentative summary of the editorial as describing "subtle little racist ideologies"; it clearly says how these subtleties build towards an "explosive" opposition to racial integration. --McGeddon (talk) 09:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Precursor?

Does this section belong here? This is not a biography of Gene Ray, and other than him I see nothing linking these?.--Scott Mac 22:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

So in one he's writing about how the important thing about the world/life/time/philosophy is that it's a cube; they're all cubes; something like that. In the other, the important thing is that it needs to be a sphere. I couldn't think of a BLP conforming way to say that the St. Petersburg reference I'm citing strongly implies that this sphere thing had taken Ray beyond the bounds of merely being a charming eccentric, who used to be actually popular when people just thought he liked marbles, but perhaps somewhere wiser than I can, because it certainly does. Surely the similarities to Time Cube are clear? The idea is to indicate the evolution of the philosophy. --GRuban (talk) 00:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Since Gene Ray redirects here, and that is how I found this page, there actually *should* be some biographical information on him here. I don't think that at this point he's notable enough to have his own page, except in relation to this. 71.13.147.17 (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Marbles

Never had the term "losing ones marbles" been more suitable on both levels for one man! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.100.26 (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Examples of racism, homophobia, and advocacy of murder

The site is racist through and through. The fact that wikipedia considers this site notable is ridiculous, but then the fact that wikipedians think the site is not racist shows how ignorant wikipedians are. The site is neither clever nor fun. It's the blather of a mentally ill Jew-hating gay-bashing racist.

He claims that Jews "deserved" to be exterminated by the Nazis and claims to know why:

I know now why the Jews deserved their holocaust - worshipping their own adult EGO image

He claims that Jews enslave people through religion (including Christianity) and through academia:

Jew owners of religious/academic christianity -- have enslaved your ass, and you are too stupid to know you are a slave

He links homosexuality to Jewishness:

Mother and father gave me birth, not a queer jew god.

He advocates placing homosexuals in reservations and gives a reason for this:

About time for Queer colony. Queers killed my lil Brother.

He promotes murder of American Christians and Jews:

It's not immoral to kill Americans who IGNORE their OPPOSITE sex parents who Created them, but instead worship a queer jew

And that's just from the first page -- the site goes on for more pages, and there is more of the same. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 05:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you have a point - our article should say more about the overall tone of the Time Cube web site. I have added a sentence with a quote from TV Tropes about this. As regards notability, the fact that a topic is considered to pass Wikipedia's notability guideline is not a value judgement, and does not signify any sort of approval of the topic or its advocates. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think any editors are arguing that the site is "not racist", just that it's difficult to find a reliable source that describes the site as racist. The Maine Campus article seems to have been accepted, though, and Ray's thoughts on racial integration are described in the article.
(I've cut the TV Tropes source, per WP:BLPSPS - it's an open wiki, so shouldn't be used to source information about a living person.) --McGeddon (talk) 08:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, I don't see how WP:BLPSPS applies, since the subject of this article is the Time Cube concept and web site, not its author, and the quote is also about the contents of the web site and not about its author. But its your call. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Fair point, although commenting on the output of a single-author site is nearer to BLP than, say, describing a huge community forum site where racism and homophobia might be endemic. We are saying "this single author here writes racist and homophobic things", it's no different to "this published author wrote a racist book" - we'd need a good source for that.
Stepping back, though, WP:SPS rules out an open wiki as a source for anything. --McGeddon (talk) 09:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the problem here is that the Time Cube site has turned nasty in recent years but its RS coverage pre-dates this. When it started it was wacky without being malicious and people wanted to write about that. These days nobody is taking any notice of it so we don't have any RS source to use to support this stuff, even though we can all see what has happened. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


First, if you're going to quote the part about the Jews deserving the holocaust, at least present the entire quote -- "I know now why the Jews deserved their holocaust - worshipping their own adult EGO image as a damn god while ignoring and betraying the very children who sacrifice their LIFE so their Moms and Dads could Live." I don't take that so much anti-Jew as anti-Adultism, he merely believes Judaism is inherently Adultist and as a result fell into some pretty hard rhetoric there.

Also, he isn't linking homosexuality to Judaism there. He is saying that the Abrahamic God, being male without a primary female counterpart, is inherently homosexual and non-creative -- that's as opposed to (in his own words from conversations we've had) the ideal Gods which would be a mother, father, daughter and son creating the universe together. 38.112.4.154 (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Time_Cube/Archive_16&oldid=1252098256"