Talk:Time Cube/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Forums

All the anti-Cubic arguments in the "Time Cube" article are actually wrong and can be easily refuted. However, rather than correct the article myself, I will simply invite any free thinkers who are interested in learning the Truth to debate Time Cube on the Time Cube forum. No closed-minded Academian pedants, please.

UPDATE: The forum is out of commission. However I may discuss Time Cube on user talk pages, like I did with Andrewa.

UPDATE: I'm now editing the article.

UPDATE: March '05: New Time Cube forum.

Clean up

During the VfD discussion there were numerous calls for a clean up of the article, noting that the article should be a discussion of Gene Ray's Time Cube website, and its impact as an internet phenomenon and classic crank website. There was also discussion of the fact that Wikipedia's No original research policy should apply to this article. As it stands Time Cube is hardly a tested or accepted theory, and thus this article is not the correct place for a discussion of Time Cube theory. Rather this article should reflect the majority view of Time Cube as an amusing or humourous crank website that has spawned innumerable parodies, jokes, and sarcastic discussions. A quick google search will show that parodies, piss takes, and general humourous commentary overwhelmingly outnumbers anything even purporting to be a serious site (and those may be subtle parodies). Wikipedia deserves to have an article about Time Cube as an internet phenomenon, and as surrealism (the categories it is listed under) for which it has gained its notability. I hope my cleaned up version properly reflects that. Cheradenine 23:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cheradenine, Einstein's relativity papers were original research, yet I note that articles General relativity and Special relativity contain descriptions of that same research. This means that No original research applies only to research that is not widely known. Time Cube, on the other hand, IS widely known, and has been re-interpreted and further disseminated on sites such as Cubic Awareness Online. It is, without doubt, quite encyclopaedic.

Testability is not an issue, as has been discussed in Talk:Gene Ray#Overview of testable/observable Cubic hypotheses. You need to take into account discussions that have previously taken place before pushing your own preferences into articles.

This is very simple. Take the time to read the No original research page carefully. Material will be considered "original research" if it has not appeared in peer reviewed journal and recieved significant major news coverage. Einstein's relativity papers appeared in a peer reviewed journal, thus they qualify to appear on Wikipedia. The Cold Fusion hoax was covered by pretty much all major news outlets, thus it qualifies to appear in Wikipedia. Time Cube has not appeared in a peer reviewed journal, and has not recieved any significant news coverage. You can blame this pn a complex conspiracy against Time Cube if you wish, but the fact remains that it is therefore original research and does not belong on Wikipedia. If you want to include your theories here do as the No original research page says and get your work published in a peer reviewed journal. Having a single website written by you as support for your claims is hardly significant. Please read the Wikipedia policy careful - it is very clear: Time Cube theory does not belong here. 65.95.133.197 15:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Peer reviewed journals" are clearly limited to Academic fields of research; not being published in an Academian publication doesn't mean that a theory has received no attention and discussion from the wider community. In fact, a Google search will reveal many instances of Time Cube being written about and discussed on blogs, forums, and other sites.

Furthermore, there are many Wikipedia articles (I can give you links should you so desire) pertaining to Internet phenomena that, while well known on the web and hence deserving of Wikipedia inclusion, have not been so successful in permeating the mainstream media. Should all these articles be deleted as "original research"?

And Time Cube has appeared in some mainstream media, such as Gene Ray's interview on TechTV's Unscrewed; the St Petersburg Times articles listed in Gene Ray; and a mention in "pcmag". On a lesser scale, there have been some articles in university student newspapers: 1 2 and 3 (which received veiled aggression from a faculty member). It's notable, and the content of the theory itself has been discussed and disseminated enough for it to be notable and of interest to readers.

If peer reviewed journals are out that's your problem not mine. As the No original research page says "The fact that we exclude something does not necessarily mean that material is bad – Wikipedia is simply not the proper venue for it". Sorry. I don't think a small local Florida paper documenting Gene Ray (not Time Cube itself), a PCMag article calling Time Cube a crank website, and a couple of student newspapers count as significant media coverage. Certainly it does not count as significant media coverage of the theory itself that takes the theory seriously in any way. I agree with Cheradenine now - we should keep the article, we just need it cleaned up. I like his/her cleaned up version, as it does exactly what is required: explains what Time Cube is and why it is well known (a notorious crank website), describes the website and its basic claims, and discusses those who adhere to other views. That's a legitmate NPOV based on the consensus view.

As I said, Time Cube is well known on the web, with many pages discussing the theory, and with Gene Ray having been interviewed about the theory on many web radio stations. That makes it encyclopaedic, as with all the other articles pertaining to web-specific subjects. I merely cited the TV interview and articles as evidence that Time Cube is not unknown to media outside of the internet.

The VFD consensus was to "Keep", but the "Keep" votes were divided between a stipulated cleanup and lack thereof. We therefore conclude that the consensus does NOT justify deleting large amounts of useful article content.

Do a google search for "Time Cube" as Cheradenine suggested - there are a lot of hits, but every single one of them other than Gene Ray's site(s) and yours is discussing the website as a joke, mocking it, parodying it, or oherwise completely failing to take the theory contained therein in any way seriously. The website is notable. I have seen no sensible serious discussion of the theory by anything other than your website and your postings here and elsewhere. The theory is not notable. Let's document the website, not your interpretation of Gene Ray's theories. 65.95.133.197 20:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that the sites are not taking it seriously; the fact is that the theory is being discussed. That makes it encyclopaedic.

An excellent approach to the article. This description of the cultural reaction to the time cube assertions is appropriate for Wikipedia. The previous content about some of the many details of time cubism was not. -R. S. Shaw 06:02, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, the previous content WAS appropriate, as I explain above.

Well this is obviously not going to be a fruitful discussion. The version anonymous keeps reverting to contains original research (not even Gene Ray's original research, but anonymous' research from CubicAO a much less well known page), patent nonsense (-1*-1!=1, pi=3.20 are clear examples), neologism (cube and corner and day and...), fancruft (a hodge podge of anonymous' personal interpretations of Gene Ray scattered around to "refute" anything anyone attempts to add) and borders on (with the increasing use of images imported from) promotional for CubicAO. I think that's plenty of reason to clean up the article - let alone that the majority of keep votes in the VfD were for keep with cleanup. I think the cruftiness of the article (it reads exceedingly poorly due being a series of "patches" to attempts at NPOV comments from other users) warrants the "start from scratch" approach I have taken. I think a focus on Gene Ray' website (which is what is famous/notable, not his theories) is entirely appropriate. I doubt I will be able to convince anonymous of any of that (given some of the previous extremely long discussions).

Cheradenine, while I must admit I am as yet uncertain as to how Dr Ray derived pi=3.20, the concept that -1*-1 != +1 is quite justifiable, as I explain in a discussion thereof (same one to which you link above). A "corner" has been clearly defined as a vertical edge (one parallel to the rotational axis, which passes through the centre of the top face and centre of the bottom face); and dictionary.com will confirm that this is indeed one of the accepted definitions, not a neologism. A day is a single full cycle of light and dark; nothing new there. Substantiate your claim that "day" and "cube" are neologisms.

The images are not in any way promotional for CubicAO -- they merely serve as illustrations of the principles conveyed by Dr Ray. Nor could the text be considered promotional, apart from a single link to CubicAO in the "external links" section.

That long mathematical discussion pretty clearly discredits you. You justify your position by redefining "multiply", "add", "equal" and a variety of other terms to suit your needs.

My arguments against those claims may be found in the mathematical discussion. But no, your strawman argument does not discredit me -- you will need to address the actual points I am making, rather than ignoring their content and grouping them under generalisations.

More neologisms is not the answer. Pi = 3.20 remains patent nonsense. Using corner of a cube in the manner you do is a neologism. Claiming a cube is an object with 4 corners is a neologism.

Maybe we can delete pi=3.20 then. I emailed Dr Ray asking him how he derived it, but he has not yet responded. From dictionary.com, we obtain the following definitions of "corner": "The position at which two lines, surfaces, or edges meet and form an angle", and "an interior angle formed be two meeting walls; "a piano was in one corner of the room"". These definitions concur with the concept of corners being vertical edges ("walls" in the second definition specifies that they are vertical edges, not horizontal). It's not a neologism.

Aside from that, the issue of Dr Ray's definition of "corner" is one commonly discussed on websites mentioning Time Cube -- many people assume that he means "vertices" (or "tricorners" as he calls them). We should therefore include in the article an explanation of this issue, since it is likely to be of interest to the reader.

If a day is a full cycle of light and dark then any point only experinces one day in 24 hours not 4. If you want to pick 4 points fine, but you can equally well pick an infinite number (or, at least, the circumference of the earth times the planck length number of points).

No; read the section of the (uncensored) article pertaining to the 4-corner-quadrant division. 4 is the harmonic minimum; further divisions are mixtures, or combinations, of those 4 harmonic corners. See also article 4 is the Supreme Number of the Universe.

The whole page as it stands is a troll for CubicAO which is itself, as far as I can tell, a troll site. Crank.net lists it as a parody site. Insolitology.com lists it as a parody site. It's a close copy of cubarian.org a now defunct parody site.

It's not a parody; it's serious. The crank and insolitology websites are in error on this issue. Cubarian is one that was a parody, but the differences are obvious: cubarian makes hardly any explanation of the actual theory, instead dedicating itself primarily to spoofing the websites of Sc1entol0gy and other cults. Now if your argument is that the content lacks pertinence to Dr Ray's scriptures, then you will need to be more specific about which content needs to be addressed.

More importantly the whole page is original research - it has never been published in any peer reviewed journal, nor recieved anything but the most casual of news coverage much of it simply mocking the site and completely ignoring the "theory". If there were a wikipedia article about dolphinsex.org (another "internet phenomenon") should it be a brief article explaining what the page it and why it is known, or a long page explaining how best to initiate sexual encounters with dolphins? Cheradenine 02:17, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

It depends whether the details of the dolphin sex theory are widely discussed among internet users. If so, then it would merit inclusion. Let us consider the Megatokyo article. It contains detailed information about the comic's creators, storyline, characters, etc. Would you care to point me to the large quantity of mainstream media articles containing in-depth discussion these issues? I doubt it has received the level of coverage you deem necessary, meaning that its encyclopaedicness is presumably due to its being well-known and oft-discussed on the Internet. By this same standard, the detailed explanations in the Time Cube article are appropriate and should remain.

I would like to propose that we either seek mediation, or conduct a survey on what content is appropriate for this article. Will anonymous accept either of those, and if so, which one? Cheradenine 17:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I will not accept deletion of almost all of the article's content. I may accept deletion of some of it, but I believe that much of the existing exposition of the theory will need to remain, being of likely interest to the reader. It would be best to discuss whether individual claims are attributable to Gene Ray and whether they are relevant to the article.

Mediation: yes or no? Cheradenine 02:17, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Survey: yes or no? Cheradenine 02:17, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Discussion of the merits of the article's actual content: yes.

Why can't the "exposition of the theory" be left to Gene Ray's website, to which the article links? Mgw

Why can't the exposition of webcomic storylines be left to the webcomic websites? Why can't the exposition of philosophical concepts be left to the philosopher's original books? Maybe exposition does have a place in Wikipedia.

Well, becuase expositions of comic storylines and philosophical concepts don't require us to explain how pi=3.2, and they don't require us to link to your troll website. Mgw 18:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

The article does not state pi=3.2 as a fact, rather it states it as a speculated consequence of Cubic geometry in connection with the decimal number system. The article's content does not require links to CubicAO -- which, contrary to the claims of you and others, is NOT a troll or parody site. Again, I suggest that we discuss the relevance of specific article content rather than drawing generalisations.

If you want some specifics let's some have specifics, but it should be: (1) About the Time Cube website. (2) Directly attributable to Gene Ray. Half the prolem with the previous page was all the original research and interpretation. It was hardly factual or verifiable.

It is exposition of the Time Cube theory based on Dr Ray's scriptures. Need I point you to Wikipedia articles in which philosophical or scientific concepts are explained without using mostly quotations from primary sources? You will notice that the exposition does contain quotes of Dr Ray, to show the reader how the exposition relates to the primary source.

I have added such material to the page in what I feel is a reasonable and NPOV way. You still revert back to the old version with orginal research, interpretations, and claims that are all unverifiable and against Wikipedia policy. A clean up was clearly called for (the page was specifically marked so when I first edited it) for these very reasons (along with the fact that is read very poorly). If you want to include some content let's discuss it. I suggest any content of "Time Cube theory" be direct quotes from Gene Ray, preferrably from the Time website, but possibly from other auxillary sites. The page needs to be cleaned up, and that essentially means rebuilt given the layers of cruft that had built up in the previous article. Try working with me (by adding content to a clean page) rather than just reverting to a page that was voted for cleanup. Cheradenine 13:21, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Cheradenine, I integrated your new contributions into the existing article. The VFD had a majority of keep votes, but within those, there was NOT a majority stipulating that cleanup was absolutely necessary. Count them; it's true. Now I have suggested that we discuss specific content rather than drawing generalisations, so I would like you to state exactly what claims are unverifiable or POV. Otherwise, you are not succeeding in effectively communicating your view.

I think I can resolve this voting issue. Obviously the best way to do this is using Cubic mathematics. Doing so I have carefully tallied and calculated and found that there were exactly 0 votes to keep the article and 4,826,167 votes for cleanup. That would appear to be a staggering majority for cleanup. 65.95.168.81 01:12, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

No, silly; Wikipedia uses 1-corner mathematics for VFD tallying. Now if we are invoking Time Cube, that indicates that it's notable and therefore encyclopaedic. I suggest that you come up with some actual reasons why cleanup should occur. If you cannot, then maybe you need to detach yourself from your closed-minded Academically indoctrinated single-corner beliefs.

Ok, Cheradenine et al, I invite you to join me in creating my new site, 21128.net, where we will publicly declare and demonstrate the ineffable source of knowledge that evil-ass Academians feeble mindedly call "the IP range 211.28**." We can turn the (obviously cubic) world upside-down with our fearless exposure of the undeniable truth that this IP range is in fact a source of divine, infallible information. Then, we can come back to wikipedia and start an article about us and another about our "ineffable" theory, endlessly trolling and reverting. Who’s in? Mgw 07:37, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

What the hell? I'm not claiming to be an absolute, authoritative source. I am merely adding to articles content that is perfectly justifiable, and exhorting other users to engage in rational debate should they happen to disagree with my views or actions. The question is: can you argue rationally in support of your stance, or have you been brainwashed to the closed-minded mentality of a Human Blockhead Android?

Wow. I think I’m a successful troll now, because that was a joke. A satire. You see how ridiculous it would be. Remember that next time you revert. Human Blockhead Android 20:01, 4 May 2005