Talk:Gene Ray

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gene Ray article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Peer review This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.
Archive
Archives
  1. Antiquity – Oct 2005


Contents

[edit] Criticism

Users from the 211.28 range seem to have a desire to remove criticism from this article (see article history, example). I think it's not too far-fetched to believe that it's the same person (Mr. Ray?), also from that range, who likes to inappropriately insert and re-insert links to this and related pages in several articles and who seems to foster a somewhat less-than-mature view of criticism as such (see VfD or my talk page). I think the criticism should remain in the article as long as the 211.28 people don't provide better arguments than just calling it "irrelevant POV". Kosebamse 12:42, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It may be seen as irrelevant in the context of the Gene Ray article since the criticism is from people other than Dr Ray. I have edited the first statement about "testable hypotheses" to neutralise possible POV, and deleted the second statement "He does however not explain how this relates to any accepted concept of time" because it doesn't make sense. Cubic Time has 3 dimensions like space, Linear Time has 1 dimension. Linear time is the accepted concept, so isn't it self-explanatory how Time Cube differs from it?
No it's not. I am rather certain that nobody except you, 211.28, and Mr. Ray understand what that means. Therefore that explanation needs to be in the article. And as long as nobody presents me a testable hypothesis about your ideas, I maintain that it cannot be disproved, therefore the sentence about disprovability must also remain. Kosebamse 08:37, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Agreed with Kosebamse. Moreover, people keep calling this a theory when it's not. A theory has to relate to a testable hypothesis; until that testable hypothesis emerges for testing and subsequent revision, it's unfair to real theories to call the Time Cube a theory. - DrMorelos (talk • contribs)

Moved this from the article (was inserted by our persistent Gene Ray fan 211.28): and was also the inventor of several patented devices. He actively promoted the game of Marbles, publishing a book entitled "Mr Marbles: Marbles for Everyone", and planning a world marbles tournament. No evidence for this is presented. 211.28, kindly adhere to the encyclopedic standards of Wikipedia[;] i.e. back your claims with facts. Kosebamse 14:22, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

US patent numbers 4,095,793; 4,095,365; 3,974,591. Search sptimes.com archives for "Gene Ray" and view the article "`Mr. Marbles' isn't playing a game anymore" (also "Protester to risk jail by feeding the birds"), and search for the book name on Google.
These patent numbers are legit and are important to the story, assuming that Ray; Otis Eugene (P.O. Box 40302, St. Petersburg, FL 33743) is the same Gene Ray. Links added to the article. Andrewa 17:53, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yes it is the same Gene Ray. Did you read the St. Petersburg Times newspaper articles?

What happened to the photo of Dr. Ray here? Crculver 04:36, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It was deleted because of the copyright policy. But I doubt that the copyright holders (the photographer, and another guy who added a background) would have objected to its use. The photo was from the 2002 MIT Time Cube debate. Hopefully there will be more Time Cube debates in the future, with higher seating capacities, better quality video and more photos. There was another debate at MIT scheduled for July 2003, but it was cancelled for unknown reasons several months beforehand.

[edit] Doctor

Should Wikipedia use the Dr. honorific if he hasn't earned it from any established or credible institution? It does not seem consistent with the explantion/definition of [doctor] on Wikipedia. --Paraphelion 22:27, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It depends whether we want Wikipedia to be cutting-edge. It is clear to anyone studying Time Cube that Dr Ray's discovery of the Ineffable 4-Corner Truth renders him worthy of the positions of Greatest Thinker and Wisest Human; he is thus granted the authority to bestow a doctorate upon himself. The only reason not to recognise this doctorate is compliance with the general stupidity that has precluded rapid acceptance of Time Cube.
Well, I myself am not so keen on dumbing down Wikipedia for the stupid and closed-minded people; although some people do seem to be, as evidenced by the censorship of the following material:
In late 2004, and in the midst of a prolific period of Time Cube evaluation marked by his creation of new and inspirational Cubic scriptures, Dr Ray took the Cubic disproof of religious concepts to the next level, by solving the major philosophical question: "Why something rather than nothing?" The answer, as published by him on his Time Cube website, related to the principle of opposites (in this case, static rather than dynamic/cyclical opposites), an important element of Cubic geometry: "Between the opposites, all things are created. As an entity, they exist only as a big zero, seen from space as something and nothing from every possible view."
It appears that the religious zealots want there to be a lack of solution for "Why something rather than nothing?", so that they can use it as a proselytisation/brainwashing tactic. Thus, when the solution is revealed, they cover it up as part of their efforts to prevent awareness of the Cubic Truth, which, as we know, disproves God and exposes religion as an evil Word-scam.
It seems a pity, but in reality, great things don't come easy. We must all fight to break the Word-shackles of religious and Academic-induced 1-corner ignorance, and force teachers to teach Cubicism above evil cubelessness. Humanity's sole hope of salvation lies with 4-corner Cubic knowledge.

Indeed, but he is not recognised as a doctor by any establishment other than himself and his "followers". I do not think that the title should be bestowed upon him, myself, at least not until someone does something silly, like pay attention to him. Wolfman 14:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Who cares? I have a "real" doctorate from a "real" accredited US university. I also held a teaching position at another "real" accredited US universitiy where several highly-qualified and highly-educated professionals applied for a professorship in my department. Sadly, the Dean of my school told us that "doctors" from universities not considered accredited in the United States were automatically disqualified, regardless of their presentations and qualifications. In addition, the question of who gets to say who is and is not a "doctor" of a philosophy may very well originate with the philosophy. If Gene Ray was its founder, regardless of how ridiculous most of us may see it, perhaps he is qualified to call himself its doctor.
On a side note, what about a man who changes his name to "Doctor?" Oh, forget it; the humor is lost. - Dr. Morelos 69.109.222.23 (talk • contribs) (The pltn13.pacbell.net domain) see also DrMorelos (talk • contribs)
DrMorelos, I see you are using a domain which has also been used by Bernard Haisch and apparently by Jack Sarfatti (both of whom have earned Ph.D.s, as you mention you have). Be aware that JackSarfatti (talk • contribs) has been permabanned by Jimbo Wales and should not be editing the WP at all, but he has attempted to edit anonymously, so you might get some questions about your IRL identity. (It seems that the degrees of both Haisch and Sarfatti are from universities accredited in the U.S., be it noted.)---CH 02:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. The East San Francisco Bay Area is home to a great number of highly educated professionals and probably equally many cranks. Though I am not willing to share my real identity online, I can safely say I have never heard of those men in my life. I can not understand why any crank would actively try to misrepresent any science; it's an exact step backward for the Wikipedia project, even if you truly believe what you're saying is true. And lots of people have "earned" doctoral degrees, yourself included. Haven't you met doctoral candidates or recipients and after a conversation with them thought to yourself, "How?"

[edit] Kosebamse's anti-Cubic crusade

Kosebamse, firstly, explain how my comment regarding Cubic implications of Occam's razor was "frivolous" and "betrays the quality of your argumentation".

Secondly, you demand testable predictions. I will firstly point out that most theories have values other than the capacity to predict the outcome of experiments. Had relativity been formulated only after all its implications had been verified, it would still be used widely, but for such practical uses as technology development and simulation. As such, to determine a theory's practical value, we must focus on its real-life ramifications -- testable hypotheses, but not necessarily predictions.

[edit] Logic

Let us try to step back from concepts of 'proof' or 'disproof' and see if the comments of this poster are even logically consistent. This should be interesting.

Statement 1: "From the fundamental Cubic principles, we may broadly define manifestations of Cubic geometry evident in reality."

Lets try to define some terms here, staring with Cube (geometry) to describe Cubic.

"A cube (or hexahedron) is a Platonic solid composed of six SQUARE faces"

Okay, lets move onto the next statement.

Statement 2: "Firstly, that everything is cyclical."

And the common definition of Cyclical...

"A cycle (Latin 'cyclus,' from Greek 'kuklos' meaning circle) is anything ROUND, in the physical sense (e.g. a bicycle) or in a temporal sense (e.g. the cycle of the seasons). Cyclic or cyclical are the adjective forms" (from Cycle).

So where is the logic in suggesting that something which is comprised of square faces (flat faces which end in 90-degree points) is in any way round?

Eagerly awaiting a response. --Bladestarr 17:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The Time Cube rotates, Bladestarr. It rotates about an axis passing through the centre of one face and the centre of the opposite face. It is its rotation that is cyclical.
It has 4 corners, these being the vertical edges parallel to the axis. Through their rotation, they form a 4/16 principle, with 4 simultaneous days in one rotation of Earth. See Cube Representation and 4/16 Rotation Principle.

In reference to the above link to Cube Representation, I perused the page and found an immediate problem with the logic of the arguments. The page speaks extensively on an object known as a "dilated Cube". The problem with discussing such an object is that the object is logically impossible. For an object to be dilated it must be longer in one direction than in another. A cube however, cannot be dilated, since the DEFINITION of a cube is "A regular solid having six congruent square faces". And a square face is a face which has all equal sides. Thus, if a cube becomes dilated as is suggested, then it CEASES to be a cube, it becomes a common rectangular prism. Comment please. --Bladestarr 01:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Correct, it ceases to be a cube, and becomes, instead, a dilated cube. That is to say, a cube that has been dilated. Following its dilation, it is equivalent to said square prism.

It becomes a rectangular prism, not a square one, since not all the sides are the same length. A square has all sides being of equal lengths.

A square prism is a special case of a rectangular prism wherein two of the faces are square. It is formed by taking a square and projecting it along an axis perpendicular to its surface. The four other faces do not have to be square.
The case here is that we're squashing a Cube along an axis passing through the centre of one face and the centre of the opposite face. This causes the lengths of 4 of its edges to change, but leaves the remaining ones unaltered. A square prism is the result.

Hasn't anyone realized yet that this banter is nothing but the redefinition of a cube? Here's some logic to try on. Timecube is, when fully read, all "proof" on the cubicao website and Gene Ray's webpages, nothing more than the admiration of the three dimensional visual effects of a quickly rotating cube (best seen when you flick one on a table top and let it spin on one of its vertices) added with the redefinition of timezones and one mans' personal opinions about society, all thrown into a mixing pot and baked in the hope that it will become a brick when instead it's jello. Because I have noticed this. For proof of this, forget about what side you're on, and read it all.

Time Cube is proven true. It is in fact the fundamental, underlying geometry of the universe. It is the theory of everything. See the Cubic Proof.
136.186.1.119 (talk • contribs) (Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia)


[edit] Above God

The page says that director Brett Hanover of the Memphis-based Chapel Films was working on the film 'Above God'. Does anyone know the progress of this film? In fact, I don't think that there is any reference given for the fact that this film is being made or has been made, so perhaps a link would be nice too. DarthVader 08:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Above God is on the festival circuit right now, and has won best documentary at Atlanta Underground Film Festival and Indie Memphis Film Festival. You can find out more about the film at the websites of those fests. [Brett Hanover]
24.92.139.189 (talk • contribs)
Brett, look at the top of the page for how to wikisign. I know this works if you register, and I think it works even if you do not. ---CH 02:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All Just a Joke?

Um, shouldn't we at least consider the possibility that Mr. Ray is not being serious?

Um, shouldn't we consider that you are an educated cubeless stupid unworthy of life on earth?


I think everyone who has seen/heard Gene Ray talk about time cube can have little doubt that he believes it and is very passionate about it. King Mob 23:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
People have gone to such lengths to perpetrate hoaxes before. Anyone remember the Church of Kurt Cobain? I think the article should at least entertain the possibility that it's all just humor.

[edit] A 16 Hour Clock?

Media:http://timecube.com/imageFUA.JPG

Based on the time cube theory stating there is four 24 hour days in one earth rotation, a 16 hour clock can't fit into that without losing 8 hours per day. Ray has just disproved his own theory by contradiction due to the fact that he believes our current clocks are wrong and should have 16 hours while each of his stated 4 days is still based on our standard linear 24 hour day.

Also, just as an fyi, a Cube has 6 sides, not 4.

I'm pretty sure Dr. Ray meant that the full rotation of Earth should be divided into 16 parts rather than 24. Thus, each of the 16 hours would be 1.5 times as long as one of the currently standard hours.
Now as has been explained many times on this site, the Time Cube possesses a rotational property whereby it rotates about an axis passing through the centre of one face and the centre of the opposite face. Those two faces are the top and bottom, with the remaining four being the four sides. See CubicAO article Cube Representation.

[edit] Should This Article Be Merged With "Time Cube" Article?

Sorry if I'm doing this wrong, but I came here because it said this article was proposed for merging. I couldn't find a place where people were discussing that exact issue so I made this subheading, I hope that is correct. Herostratus 18:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

  • no merge. Instead, separate out the Time Cube content from this article and the Gene Ray content from the Time Cube article (except for brief overviews)Herostratus 18:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Can you explain what you think of as being the "Gene Ray" content? There just isn't enough (basically one section's worth), and I feel that any discussion of his biography will need to be intertwined with Time Cube to the point where they are best discussed together. Please read/edit my concepts about merging and splitting here if you have a philosophical disagreement. Tx. Metaeducation 02:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cube

Has this guy ever seen the movie Cube? Or in any way related to some other fans of other cubes? Mathmo 21:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No I am not so much interested in the Cube movies, or Rubix cubes.
136.186.1.119 (talk • contribs) (Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia)

[edit] Recent anon edits

  • 134.193.168.237 (talk • contribs) the kc.umkc.edu anon; see also the Kansas City library anon

---CH 01:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

Regardless of what you think about Time Cube, and I seriously think there could only be one person dumb enough to think it is an accurate "theory" (if you can even call something so absurd a theory), this page is written from the standpoint that it really is not true. Here are examples:

  • Critics of Ray like to draw attention to his "marbles period" because they consider it inconsistent with his later Time Cube theory.
  • It is viewed that under established psychiatric schema, some of his beliefs are typical of paranoid schizophrenia, such as his delusions of grandeur and belief that he is being persecuted.
  • There is an aspect of Ray's theory often claimed by critics to constitute a flaw.

These statements need citation. The fact that Gene Ray is completely batshit insane does not mean that people on Wikipedia can write controversial things about him without citation, even if they're true. Imagine what would happen if someone wrote that Tom Cruise is considered a paranoid schizophrenic by psychiatry: people would demand a citation or just delete it. --Stellis 03:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this really serious? I thought David Icke was far out, but bloody hell, this reads like one of Robin Cooper's Timewaster Letters. 'A giant million-man marbles tournament held inside a giant sphere to educate the world on principles of Cubicism' - man, anyone who can make that up is a genius. User:Uberisaac

[edit] Who cares?

At the moment, the external links of this article says:

Cubic Awareness Online, an Australian Cube fansite (hosted separately by a webhosting company, HostDime.com, Inc., which is geolocated in Orlando, FL)

In short, why do we mention who the hosting company is - why is this important?! If every external link included this information, this would be a very boring encyclopedia. If nobody can state a reason why this information is relevant, I will remove it in a few days. WikianJim 19:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this had already been removed. Never mind. WikianJim 08:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] problems with this article

This article does not quite meet the standards of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, or WP:BLP. Using someone's blog and interviews as a source for their own article can be acceptable, but not when we're picking out the craziest text from the blog and condensing it together. And especially not when we're interpreting those things. If Gene Ray is notable enough for an article, then surely some reliable sources will have made the points that this article is trying to make. We should cite them, not make the points ourselves. --Allen 05:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the articles are rather NPOV. It will probaly be hard finding any reliable sources since they dont exist. Just about anything written about Time Cube will be original research since no one from the mainstream media or academic world have written about it.The articles should probably be deleted if WP policies were to be followed strictly, but obviously Time Cube is rather well known to a range of internet users. Tranqulizer 13:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mentally Unstable

There is no question in my mind that Gene Ray is completely mentally unstable and has no comprehension of reason or logic. Someone should do some research into his mental history.

Quote from timecube.com: "My wisdom so antiquates known knowledge, that a psychiatrist examining my behavior, eccentric by his academic single corner knowledge, knows no course other than to judge me schizoprenic." [sic]
Unfortunately it's not clear if he's admitting he's been diagnosed with schizophrenia in a clinical setting, or just trying to make another "point" about how stupid the psychiatric establishment is. If the former, this would be quite significant. 152.23.101.108 02:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, almost certainly this poor guy has schizophrenia and should be treated. It's kind of amazing nobody seems to have picked up on this before ... the symptoms are as clear as they get! 194.230.53.149 20:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/e/n/Talk%7EGene_Ray_d77f.html"