Talk:Time Cube

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Time Cube article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
Internet Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the Internet culture. For more information, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
In the month of July, 2005, a request for arbitration was left open concerning this article. Both sides were allowed to express their viewpoints. Afterwards, the arbitrators made the following comments. Please leave this section here for reference; any changes will be removed.
  • Accept Fred Bauder July 7, 2005 22:39 (UTC)
  • Accept ➥the Epopt 23:08, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 17:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not sure you need the ArbCom to tell you what to do with an incoherent POV-pushing anon ... - David Gerard 10:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Reject. As David, this is not a situation where you need arbitration. Just block as needed -- sannse (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Reject - Concur with David, shoot on sight, no arbcom needed. →Raul654 17:26, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Reject, agree with David. James F. (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Reject. Feel free to block on sight. You don't need our permission. Neutralitytalk 18:43, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

For those who haven't been following the discussion... A mostly anon user, referred to as TimeCubeGuy, frequently reverts pages to some variant of this version. The "unofficial" result of the above ArbCom (the case was rejected on grounds that the user was a simple troll/crank) was to shoot this user's edits on sight: that is, if you see the page resembling the page referenced above, it is considered vandalism and should be reverted.
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15


Contents

[edit] 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)


[edit] Idiots

Some of this guys theories might make some sense to a twisted mind like mine, but reading his page he just seems like a twisted cult leader. A lot of what Gene Ray says can be easily thought of as trash. I have very bad strong views on everything, even Christianity. I don't get tied up with anything. But I know I can say this as a statement. Gene Ray seems like another L Ron Hubbard. Only a good science fiction writer.

I don't aim to please with this comment, I just aim to make controversy, and state my mind.--XCheese360 (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the Xenu article, I think you'll quickly change your mind that L. Ron Hubbard was any sort of good science fiction writing. Star Wars, Star Trek, Mass Effect, Half-Life 2, etc. are good science fiction stories. Time Cube and Scientology are far, far from it. Popisfizzy (talk) 05:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Pro-Cubic

[edit] Publicity

[edit] Link repository

[edit] Academic lectures

[edit] Parodies

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)