Talk:Time Cube/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9 →

1 "Cleanup" cut too much
2 Reverting
3 Closed deletion listing
4 Should the article be temporarily protected?
5 Justification of article content
- 5.1 Continued justification
6 Theory

"Cleanup" cut too much

I have to agree with the anon who's been reverting away from the "cleaned up" version, now that I look at the two. While the original version could definitely use some tightening, IMO the "cleaned up" version is more of a "brutally slashed and burned" version - all of the diagrams are gone, explanatory text has been reduced to bulleted lists of points (that's the opposite direction most articles attempt to develop in), all the details about Ray's appearances on radio and at that MIT lecture have been removed, etc. I think the article should be reverted and then cleaned up again with a much more careful approach that isn't throwing out babies with bathwater. Bryan 15:58, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I would argue that the "slashed and burned" version is the preferable of the two. IMO the reverted version, other than presenting a lot of "original research", deviated significantly from a logical expansion of its arguments, and so a bulleted list of its main points could be considered a valid way to proceed. I think that Ray's appearances on radio and the MIT lecture would be more appropriate on the Gene Ray page, rather than here. A bit of an expansion of what the theory is about might be useful to give context, but nothing like what the anon editor has been reverting to. Anilocra 16:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Mgw 19:50, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, agree with Bryan Derksen. For some time, I have been requesting that Cheradenine actually discuss the merits of content in the full article, rather than throwing it into the generalisation of "original research" which he proceeds to slash and burn. So again, let's be reasonable; explain why you consider the content inappropriate, rather than merely mass-deleting it.

Like I said, a brief expansion of the section on theory might be useful to give the subject context, but great tracts don't help the article. If people are interested in the theory, they are only one click away from it - it doesn't need to be repeated in wikipedia. Anilocra 12:44, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

If people are interested in Special relativity, they may turn to the Wikipedia article for an fairly detailed explanation -- NOT to merely locate a hyperlink to Einstein's original papers. As I have said, exposition does have a place in Wikipedia.

My position is opposing original research on Wikipedia. Personally I feel any explanation of Time Cueb theory amounts to this, but I'll accept that that is debatable and Time Cube as a website is at least well known (notorious might be a better word) on the internet. As that's the case I think it is reasonable to include factual material about what Gene Ray has said. Given the difficulty in extracting explanations from Gene Ray's work that has resulted in a bulleted list of claims directly quoting Gene Ray. This shouldn't be surprising because it is, in a sense, all the Time Cube website is. My objection to the old version is pretty much every single "explanation" of the theory which appears to be the personal interpretation of anon user 211.28.*.*. Certainly anon's webapge and theories are not famous, and not notable, so that work most definitely counts as original research. If 211.28.*.* would like to remove all his own work and interpretations leaving only those claims and explanations that can be directly attributed to the Time Cube website or Gene Ray then perhaps we could discuss things. I'm trying to hold out a branch here including any claims - I think it's all original research and should all be cut. In the meantime I'm removin the explanation of theory and diagamra from the cleaned up page - that's 211.28.*.* original research. Cheradenine 15:49, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realize so much of that explanatory text had been made up from scratch rather than distilled from the actual time cube page (I tried reading it in detail once, I really did :). However, the bulleted lists still seem overly utilitarian for an encyclopedia article, and the page could at the very least use some version of the diagrams from the time cube page itself (preferably redrawn from scratch to avoid copyright problems - I could do a quick and dirty job of it myself if nothing else is available). How about instead of reverting and re-cleaning, I instead see if I can find snippets of the anon-contributed version that stand on their own and reflect what's actually on the time cube page to splice into the current version? Bryan 02:05, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable plan. The reason I cut so much was that the "original research" material was so comprehensively intertwined that trying to edit it out and still get a coherent article was going to be more trouble than it was worth. I figured cutting back to a solid base and working up from there was going to be easier. If you have some explanations of Time Cube that verifiably Gene Ray's that you want to include that would be good - that's pretty much how I was hoping this would work. 211.28.*.* took to reverting rather than helping reconstruct which didn't make things any easier. Thanks. Cheradenine 04:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, my contributions ARE distilled from Gene Ray's official webpages, radio interviews, etc. I've spent a lot of time studying Dr. Ray's teachings, and have created useful content based on my knowledge of Cubic principles. This, I would rather people not barge in and delete without good cause.

Cheradenine, you are again refusing to discuss the specific content. Surely you cannot believe everything you deleted had absolutely nothing to do with Dr Ray's scriptures -- especially given that it included quotes of him to give context? You need to state which particular parts of the article you consider original research.

I think the key point here is "I've spent a lot of time studying Dr. Ray's teachings, and have created useful content based on my knowledge of Cubic principles". It is your understanding and your explanations of "Cubic principles" that appear on your version of the page. As was shown in the Greenwich Mean Time discussions your views and interpretations can end up differing quite significantly from Gene Ray's. This is not a place for original research, and your views and ideas, and interpretations and explanations are exactly that. This is not a page for 211.28.*.* anon's Time Cube theory, this is a page about Time Cube, the website by Gene Ray. At best we can say that Gene Ray's Time Cube is notable (personally I think it counts as original research - it's not peer reviewed and hasn't recieved significant media coverage) and attempt to document that theory. Interpretations and further explanations of the theory beyond what is immediately documented on the Time Cube website are most certainly original research, and we have no guarantee they conform in any way to Gene Ray's theory. That is to say, this is not the place for your personal musings, speculations, and thoughts on Time Cube theory. Make your own website famous, write a peer reviewed paper, or get significant media exposure for yourself and your version of the theory, and then get back to us.

Firstly, how does what I said in Talk:Greenwich Mean Time contradict Dr Ray? I don't believe it does to any great degree. Secondly, the issue is not whether my contributions "can end up differing quite significantly from Gene Ray's". The issue is whether they DO end up doing so. Pursuant to that, I will yet again reiterate that you need to make reference to specific content and reasons why it might be inappropriate, rather than generalising and mass-deleting it.

Special Relativity was published in a peer reviewd paper 100 years ago, and has been documented and written about in hundreds of peer reviewed papers and books since then. Despite this the explanation on the Wikipedia article is, in fact, a very terse and brief one. Every statement made in the article can probably be referenced to 10 or more different papers or books all making extremely similar, or even identical statements. The only official reference we have for Time Cube is the website that has gained "notability" (or should that be notoriety), so any statements need to be able to be factually verifiable against the site - referencing your own original research on your own non-notable site is not going to count.

I didn't find the Special Relativity article quite so terse -- and take into account, also, that various different facets of these theories are spread across a number of articles. With Time Cube, on the other hand, all content resides within one article, necessitating substantial length.

I think you'll find the amount or recognised peer reviewed material on special relativity and related theories utterly dwarfs the amount of documented Time Cube theory that we can even begin to consider "notable", which explains why there is more material on Wikipedia for special relativity and related theories. Cheradenine 05:41, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

What is "peer review"? Answer: It is when an Academian pedant's writings are endorsed by other pedants. We can draw the analogy between this and the Cubic scriptures of Dr Ray being endorsed by CubicAO. View CubicAO, as well as all the other sites discussing Time Cube, as peer review. Time Cube is certainly of interest to Wikipedia readers, and exposition of the theory deserves inclusion.

Call it whatever you like, the fact remains that formal peer review is the standard a source needs to pass to be acceptable to Wikipedia. That means recognised peer reviewed journals. If you don't like academia and recognised peer reviewed journals that's fine, just don't expect Wikipedia to publish your personal research. Thousands of published papers on special relativity means thousands of sources that Wikipedia recognises, containing a vast wealth of information. Whether the Time Cube website is a recognised source for theory is up for debate, so for Tiem Cube you have at best one recognised source. Is it any surprise that there is less detail and less information? Cheradenine 06:32, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

And no, the article's explanations do not reference pages on CubicAO; the only thing they do reference are Dr Ray's scriptures, and quotes therefrom. I cite CubicAO articles in order to help people understand the concepts, not to justify inclusion of particular content in the article.

I will be happy to discuss specific content as you add the content to the cleaned up article - you are welcome to do so, but it would be helpful if it was added slowly so each point in turn can be discussed. Cheradenine 19:16, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

In fact, the content has been gradually added to the article over the last year, during which time you were not present to discuss it. Therefore, should you wish to make drastic modifications, it is your responsibility to provide their possibly long-winded justification.

I think I'll wait until this edit war is over before doing any major work myself, at this point. If my vote is useful in the interim I think I've been convinced that the larger version contains too much original research, it'll probably be easiest to start from the bullet-point version instead. Bryan 02:05, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

It's clear that a cleanup is needed. Unless 211.28 agrees to arbitration, I fear this rv war will continue. It seems they have an inordinate amount of time on their hands. --Dave C. 03:04, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I feel there is a general consensus to work from the cleaned up version and possibly expand it to have fuller explanations if that proves possible to do in a reasonable way without resorting to original research. The old article, to which anon keeps reverting was tagged as requiring cleanup (I note anon removed that tag from the version they revert to), so I think taking fresh look at the article and rebuilding it is a logical approach, and quite well justified as is. It would seem that any expansion of the cleaned up artile is unlikely as long as you proceed with this revert war. Will you accept mediation? Cheradenine 05:41, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

As I said, my point of view is not that I should have to add everything over again and provide justification, but rather, that you should delete content from the existing version and provide justification. Asserting that the whole thing is "original research" is not legitimate justification.

And you can argue that all you want, but I am far from the only one trying to maintain and edit the cleaned up version. The version you keep reverting to was listed as requiring clean up, and it still requires clean up. It reads poorly, is a hodge podge of information, and contains large amounts of original research. If you want to actually use a cleaned up version of your article then perhaps we can discuss that, but that's not what you are doing - you are simply reverting. I tried editing your article down, but failed to make anything cohenrent, and hence I decided to start from a fresh base. I strongly suggest that we seek mediation on this issue so we can resolve it instead of having this silly revert war. `Cheradenine

What, so because someone arbitrarily applied a cleanup tag to the article, Jesus will damn you to hell if you don't delete almost all the content? You will need to accord greater respect to other users' contributions if you are to avoid reversions.

I'm saying that because I and a lot of other people thought it needed cleaning up, that it was worth cleaning up. Wikipedia will not be as good if aticles don't adhere to the guidelines. There were an awful lot of votes or comments calling for cleanup on the VfD where cleanup wasn't the point of order. Perhaps we could run a survey to get an idea of the consensus view on cleaning up the article. You have avoided answering my repeated requests for a survey or mediation - why? Cheradenine 09:21, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Because those are not required. You need to assume your own responsibility to engage in rational thought and debate, rather than uncompromisingly hiding behind Wikipedia policies. There were an awful lot of keep votes on VFD that didn't stipulate cleanup, even though it had been proposed several times on that page. I believe that the full version of the article does adhere to the guidelines; as I explained, it's not original research.

Rational thought tells me not to make unwarranted assumptions. A vote to keep an article about Time Cube on Wikipedia is not a vote to keep the article as it is. That was a survey about deletion, not cleanup, so I don't think we can gather any meaningful results other than noting that many people asked for a cleanup. If you want to know what the consensus is on cleaning up the page (as opposed to deleting it) then by all means, lets conduct a survey as to whether your version of the page requires cleanup - are you willing to do this? If you are then we can begin sorting out what the question should be and what the options should be.

I feel that a survey is not the way to go. There is no guarantee that its participants will represent an accurate statistical sample of Wikipedia readers. And to view its outcome to determine the undisputably "correct" version of the article would be suppressive to article development. Again, you would do better to discuss the article's actual content and why it should be considered original research.

Votes for deletion and votes for featured articles have a similar lack of guarantees yet you seem to wish to use the votes collected there to support your argument. Wikipedia works by consensus where possible, and article development should follow the consensus. The way to get some idea of the consensus view is to put the question out there in a survey. We have heard your views, and we don't agree with them. If there are other views supporting your version of the page, it would be good to hear them. A survey and an announcement seem like the best way to gather such views. Cheradenine 07:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I merely cited the votes in response to your frequent references to them in your efforts to support cleanup. See the featured article nomination page for comments supporting the page as it existed prior to cleanup.

Whether you believe or try to explain that your version of the page does not contain original research, I have read it, and feel that it does. Others have read it and apparently feel that it does. Arguing with me is not going to stop the reverts back to the cleaned up version - I am far from the only person reverting the page. If you think you have a clear explanation that will convince all involved that your version of the page is the proper and correct one and should be left, by all means write it. If it doesn't convince me, or others, then perhaps mediation is required. You've written a lot of explanation, none of it has been convincing to me. Unless you have some significant new arguments you haven't given before I am not going to be convinced. That would seem to be a deadlock, and thus does require mediation. Cheradenine 18:17, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Let's examine the featured article nomination page for this article. Apart from myself, the following three users were in support of the nomination: Gmaxwell, Ryanaxp, Franc28. In determining their stance, they were referring to the article as it existed prior to your so-called "cleanup". We may therefore count them as being opposed to cleanup.

You are really grasping at straws now. If you want to go by that then those favouring clean up include Mgw, Curps, Gadfium, Anilocra, Nunh-huh and User:Knowledge_Seeker, as they've all reverted backt to the cleaned up version. Then there's Dave Cohoe, Bryan Derksen and R.S.Shaw who have all made a clear preference for proceeding from the cleaned up version on this talk page. We can guess all we want about what sort of support there is for your version as opposed to a cleaned up version by looking at previous surveys for other things and try and infer meaning. The obvious thing to do is to actively conduct a survey specifically on this issue. Why do you keep ignoring and avoiding my suggestions about this? Cheradenine 06:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I have not ignored them; I have responded to your suggestion of a survey above. Go back and read it properly.

The running theme here is that Anon continues to repeat the same arguments ad nauseum. Further, they seem to think that the burden of proof (or disproof) for the contents here is on the rest of us. The burden of proof (or proof that this is not original research) is on the supporter of these ideas. Here's my vote for cleanup. It seems a forgone conclusion that all those cleaning up the article support cleaning it up. -- Dave C. 01:54, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Another aspect of the running theme is that other users ignore and fail to refute my arguments "ad nauseum". The full article includes quotes from Gene Ray that quite clearly relate to at least some of the article content surrounding them, so who bears the burden of justifying deletion of that content? The one who deletes it.

Anyway, if I have to, I will provide quotes of Dr Ray supporting all exposition of the theory in the article. Then it will be clear that it's not original research. Cheradenine's opinion to the contrary must be based on lack of knowledge of Dr Ray's teachings -- he certainly hasn't demonstrated any other basis for it.

Let's be clear: there is a dispute here, and unless you have something new to say it won't be resolved by arguing here. Wikipedia has policies for handling disputes. They are surveys and mediation (and finally arbitration). Given that we clearly have a dispute it only makes sense to then follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies to resolve it. Will you help me develop a survey question and answer set, or agree to mediation? Cheradenine 06:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Both would seem unnecessary if you were willing to properly justify your deletion of content.

Reverting

I've just left this message for Anilocra (talk · contribs), but I'll post it here too:

When you revert on an article as you did at Time Cube, please take care to revert only what you object to. When other editors have made unrelated changes to the article, it's considered unmannerly to sweep out their edits too. I've reverted to my version, which includes edits made by three editors including myself since the version you find objectionable. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:26, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate what you say about not reverting other people's well intentioned edits when dealing with objectionable text, and under all other circumstances I would not have done so, however Timecube is not a stable article. While these edits did include a disambiguation and a revision of a sentence, as well as your own {{copyedit}} tag, these changes were all made to the version of the article which is "uncleaned-up" and do not exist in the cleaned version, so would have been difficult to preserve. The version to which I reverted is one which myself and several other editors have been working after the general consensus of the VfD was to cleanup and keep. Anonymous user 211.28.xx.xxx reverts these changes to the pre-VfD version, offering fairy evasive arguments as justification. The user is also avoiding arbitration, so it is difficult to see how we can proceed here. Anilocra 15:52, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I can see your problem, but having just remade some of my corrections, I can confirm that the problems existed in the original version too. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:16, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Closed deletion listing

This article was listed for deletion on 26 April 2005. The discussion was closed with the result of keep. This article will not be deleted. You can view the discussion, which is no longer live: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Time Cube. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Should the article be temporarily protected?

While the latest VfD was in progress I didn't think it was appropriate to protect the article, since important edits might need to be done on a tight schedule at such times. Now that the latest VfD is finished and it'll probably be several months before someone VfDs this article yet again, though, should I protect the article to put a stop to this low-intensity edit war that's been grinding along without any apparent progress being made by anyone? Perhaps anonymous will be more willing to discuss references for the stuff in his version here on talk: if there isn't the option of just reverting to it, and if nothing else it could allow for work to be done on a temporary branch version in the meantime. I haven't participated in the editing of the article itself yet so hopefully there isn't a conflict of interest in me offering this, but if anyone thinks my participation in talk: above is enough for that an entry on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection should have the same effect. Bryan 09:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that would be a sensible move, and don't see a conflict of interests. Thanks. Mgw 17:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I would support that, but I fear we'll just be moving the problem elsewhere - still, like you say, I think it could move things on from the current state of affairs. Anilocra 17:38, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Done. Hopefully this will force some more fruitful discussion of the issue now. For example, anon, if the material you've added isn't actually original research you could try presenting point-by-point references showing where each bit comes from on the Time Cube site. Information on Wikipedia really should be thoroughly sourced anyway, so if it turns out this stuff should be included after all the result will be an even better article because of it. Bryan 23:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Oy vey, I see what you mean. I'm going cross-eyed trying to read these "justification" sections, some of this stuff is about as hard to make sense of as the original website. Anon, perhaps you should focus on just one bit at a time? Pick one section from your version, present your case for it, and wait to see how that turns out before moving on to the next one. This enormous stream of quotes is very hard to follow and impossible to debate as a whole. Bryan 03:51, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Bryan, would you please have a tiny little read of the following quote from what I have written below:

"I will have to proceed through the entire article text, since the following request of mine was ignored: "Cheradenine, you are again refusing to discuss the specific content. Surely you cannot believe everything you deleted had absolutely nothing to do with Dr Ray's scriptures -- especially given that it included quotes of him to give context? You need to state which particular parts of the article you consider original research.""

If I justify only one paragraph at a time and wait a week for other users to respond, it is going to take quite a while to cover the whole thing. Hopefully, you will treat me fairly and take whatever time is required to justify your viewpoint (assuming that it is justifiable).

Yes, it will take a long time. Why is this a problem? Wikipedia isn't being written on a deadline, many years from now new stuff will still be being added. Consider that back when you were edit warring you spent three weeks doing daily reversions and the only thing that accomplished was to entrench everyones' opinions. If you'd instead spent the time arguing for the inclusion of just three paragraphs from your original version, then the current version of the article might well have some of your material in it at this point. On the other hand, I suspect that if you continue trying to ram the whole thing through at once then a year from now there'll still be nothing of your version in there yet. Bryan 17:35, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

There is no deadline; however, in general, it is counterproductive to Wikipedia if users have to wait too long to complete tasks. It sounds like you intend on preserving the slashed-and-burned version, and are not giving the full version a fair hearing. As I said, users responsible for deletion of text have refused to compromise, meaning that for re-inclusion of text, I must argue in support of the whole thing.

If you insist that your version should be accepted or rejected as an indivisible unit, then don't be tremendously surprised if the whole thing gets rejected as a unit. Personally I think there may be some parts of it that are worth restoring, but that there are probably also parts that need to go. That is compromise, an "all or nothing" approach is not. Bryan 00:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I am OK with only parts of it being restored. But as I said, there have been no suggestions as to which parts to keep and which parts to go; opposing users insist on deleting the whole thing as "original research". I am therefore counter-arguing their claim, with regard to the full article text. For a compromise, slash-and-burn users will need to take a more lenient stance.

And I was making a suggestion on how you might be able to better convince people to compromise. I'm the one who originally applied the term "slashed-and-burned" to the current version, and yet even I am now falling on the side of "better to just leave all this stuff out, it's too hard to distill the good from the bad." You can't go calling people "human blockhead androids" and ramble on about how "evil is cubeless" and expect them to make all the effort to compromise with you. You're not going to be able to force your way through on your own, you've got to look at the reasons why people are opposing you and try to figure out how to convince them to willingly agree with you instead. Bryan 15:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The only legitimate reason presented has been "original research". Accordingly, I am, in #Justification of article content, explaining why the content does not fall under that category. Now there have been some arguments relating to original research, but to none of those have I replied with the inappropriate comments you cite. That means those comments aren't a problem. Why don't you unprotect the article and allow progress to occur.

One legitimate reason is all that's needed. As for the "justification" sections, those are what I was making suggestions about; they're almost unreadable in their current state, I think you'd have better results if you focused on one section of your version at a time. If I unprotect the article, are you going to revert it again like you were doing for the month or so before I protected it? That's not progress. Bryan 15:44, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Original research is a legitimate reason for deleting content; but as I have shown in #Justification of article content, it does not apply here. I may trim the full article to focus on the most important parts, however.

There are more legitimate reasons. One of them follows. It seems that 211.28.** is pushing hard for (what she/he calls) a neutral point of view on whether "timecube" is true or not. This sounds reasonable at first, but it is well within Wikipedia policy for the article not to present timecube as a legitimate theory. Consider language in the NPOV policy itself: "There is a difference between facts and values, or opinions. By 'fact,' we mean 'a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute...That Mars is a planet is a fact. That Socrates was a philosopher is a fact." Add to that "That the earth is round is a fact" and "That time is linear is a fact." That a handful of people claim to dispute these (no matter how sincerely or how ardently) is not enough for Wikipedia to take a neutral point of view on them. These few people do not constitute "serious dispute", no matter how ferverently they argue. For example, if tomorrow I start a website called MarsComet.com where I "proove" that mars is in fact a comet, I don't have the right to start changing Mars to reflect NVOP on the subject. Nor does 211.28.** have the right to demand that the article not clearly establish that the theory is nearly universally considered wrong (and/or a joke), and is demonstrably false (if falisifiable, or even disernable in the first place). Thats precisely the purpose of this provision of the NPOV policy, to prevent those who make outlandish claims from hiding behind NPOV. Mgw 06:22, May 19, 2005 (UTC) P.S. What do you think of: "Comet is truth. Planet is evil. Dumbass astronomer equate celestial stupidity." See you at MIT.

The above is a strawman argument. Nowhere in the full article is it claimed that Mars is not a planet, nor that Socrates was not a philosopher, nor that the Earth is not round. Due to Time's intangibility, the concept of Time being linear is not to be considered fact; rather, it should be recognised as but an accepted representation.

Within the full article are explained the arguments that Time is Cubic; these are of interest to readers, being that the TimeCube.com website and contents thereof are very well-known. Only if your MarsComet proposal became similarly famous would there be granted a prerogative to add to Wikipedia content pertaining thereto.

Now may I request that you substantiate the following: "the theory ... is demonstrably false"?

1. The above is not a strawman argument: Nowhere did I suggest that the article you propose claims that Mars is not a planet or that Socrates was not a philosopher. Those were direct quotes from NPOV policy, as would be apparent to anyone who had actually read the above. MarsComet was an analogy in reference to the quote.

2. You are correct that timecube is of interest because it is well known. That was not in dispute. Rather, it was argued that the NPOV policy, which you use to justify your content, does not provide justification for you to weigh equally arguments for and against the nearly universally accepted fact that 1 earth day corresponds to 1 rotation of the earth. That's why the NPOV policy mentions facts, because your dispute of them does imply a need for NPOV. That's also why you were prevented from editing Greenwich Mean Time.

3. I am arguing that the article should treat timcumbe as a crank website, and its "arguments" should be presented simply, as they are in the current version. I and others feel that your additions are unnecessary and not helpful. In addition, I beleive them to be in bad faith. You've made your case, we're not convinced. I don’t know what else to tell you. Mgw 03:13, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

1. The above associates obvious facts ("Mars is a planet", etc.) with a statement that is less concrete ("Time is Linear"), thus committing the strawman argument that since the article contradicts the latter, it stands also in contradiction of the former.

2. I have previously argued that the concepts presented on TimeCube.com are well-known and oft-discussed. This means that they are of interest to readers. The article covers the widespread anti-Cubic views; but, since the pro-Cubic views are also significant, they also require exposition.

3. You are arguing in support of bullet-point lists of short quotes. Need I direct you to some of the many Wikipedia articles containing exposition more detailed than this? I agree to trim the full article such that it focuses on the core issues. However, this will not extend to the slash-and-burn approach that you advocate.

I agree that the topic is notable, and that presentation of the "theories" is worthwhile. However, this will not extend to the lengthy, occasioanlly coherent approach that you advocate. Mgw 05:59, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

At least we've got agreement now that the article needs to be trimmed. Since Anon didn't want to do it himself, how about I start pasting one chunk of his version at a time into here so that it can be commented on and perhaps modified in a more easy-to-follow manner? Bryan 17:30, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I propose a trimmed version of the article here.

That version maintains much of the ridiculousness of other versions: academic, academicians, etc. are not capitalized; Gene Ray is not a doctor; some of the images, especially this one are nonsensical and need to go. Also, cubic is a disambiguation page, and when the article says that "time is cubic", it should link to something specific. Lastly, I still think that the relatively long explanations of the "theory" are POV, because they suggest that the theory is tenable and serious, which is disputed. Mgw 19:00, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

P.S.: You can't successfully feign an interest in NPOV and call -1 x -1 = 1 a "bias".

You may edit the proposed article to fix objections. The images are but visual representations of the explained concepts, and should remain. The explanations of the theory suggest merely that the details of the theory are of interest to readers. This suggestion, I have already justified.

I will be gone for a couple weeks, but I hope other users will pitch in to work on this article, becuase my absence isn't an indication that the proposed version is acceptable. Mgw 01:33, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, tomorrow I'll try my hand at going through the proposed trimmed article and make the changes you suggested above. I'll also see what other changes seem appropriate to me. Since it's just a temporary scratchpad article at the moment, I'll use extensive HTML comments and such to explain what I'm doing right in place and hopefully that'll help. Bryan 04:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Mgw 07:31, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

I will go through the content below.

Justification of article content

Time Cube is a theory proposed by Gene Ray on his Time Cube website, postulating that time is cubic, not linear, and that there are four simultaneous days in a single rotation of Earth.

From TimeCube.com: "Time is CUBIC, not linear as stupid and evil educators teach children." "Earth has 4 simultaneous Days within only 1 rotation. Losing 3 Days in each Earth rotation has retarded your mentality to stupid and an education of Evil. You do not have the mind or education to envision Nature's Time Cube."

It is notable as an internet phenomenon because of the website [1] is very well-known, and Gene Ray is a minor celebrity for his controversial philosophy. Many imitations and parodies of the Time Cube website exist. The website itself contains exceptionally long strident tracts of large font text in a variety of colours, which some readers may consider somewhat incomprehensible and incoherent. Dr Ray explains that many ordinary humans—as well as many Academians and others claiming superiority over laymen—tend not to understand Time Cube because "[They] are educated singularity stupid by evil ass educators".

From TimeCube.com: "Cubeless education - is a deadly evil. Cubeless educators are evil bastards. Humans are dumb, educated stupid, and evil. They don't want to know Nature's Cubic Order of Creation." "Academic free speech is a damn lie. Try to discuss & debate Nature's Time Cube and your evil teachers will not allow you."

"Educators and teachers, ignorant of the Time Cube Principle, are evil liars and unfit to live in Earth's Garden of Eden."

"Any educator who allows Time Cube debate will most likely be fired or killed by religious zealot brethren who staff and control all academic schools."

We note that he identifies Academians, teachers, religious zealots as being particularly notable in the context of educated stupidity. Presumably, their distinguishing characteristic is that they claim superiority and authority over laymen, and exert power and control in society. We should therefore include "as well as many Academians and others claiming superiority over laymen".

It is also proposed that high-ranking Academicians may understand Time Cube but nonetheless deny it,

From TimeCube.com: "Stupid Educators know of the Truth I speak and know that it will indict them as the most evil bastards on the Earth." "Educators are evil to deny Time Cube debate. Academic ignoring of Time Cube equates evil."

because contrary to the proven 4-corner Cubic truth, their beliefs entail self-aggrandising and pseudo-religious "Word-Worship", which is seen to equate to only 1 corner, or a manifestation of what Dr Ray refers to as "Singularity".

"Think of the Time Cube as a 4-corner class-room representing the 4-corners of Earth, wherein, stupid educators teach erroneous 1-corner self aggrandizing singularity - that equates a deadly poison to Cubic humanity." "Academic ignoring of Time Cube equates evil. Word worship educators beget stupid students." "Worship of Word is Evil, for it 'counterfeits' Deed and teaches Liar is God."

Views of Time Cube, of the website and of Dr Ray are varied. Some view the website and theory as examples of absurdism or surrealism and some value it as a website they find humourous. Some of the website's statements and claims bear a resemblance to conspiracy theories—the website has voluminous and at places inflammatory text alleging the existence of academic and government conspiracies to suppress Time Cube through the school system. Others view it as having gained notoriety as a so-called crank website. On the other hand, there are some who understand and follow Time Cube, and associated philophy promoted by Gene Ray. They argue that Time Cube observably manifests itself in significant ways.

(self-explanatory)

Some critics invoke Academic scientific principles, based on which they may conclude it unclear as to how Ray's ideas relate to their established concepts of time; and due to an alleged lack of testable hypotheses or predictions associated with Time Cube doctrine (some base this on finding the theory's exposition to be semantically unclear), they may find it to lack falsifiability. According to the majority of academic scientists, it therefore falls into the category of speculative belief and cannot be considered compatible with currently accepted mainstream principles of physics and science.

(self-explanatory)

Ray, however, claims Time Cube's supremacy on the grounds that "Time Cube is above academic comprehension. Universities equate doomed Towers of Babble.", and he claims to "have demonstrated absolute unrefutable proof". The most common view is that Time Cube is somewhat eccentric —and notoriously poetic—fringe philosophy.

See it's poetry for a user confirming the site's poetic value. Search Google for other such comments. Read through TimeCube.com yourself to experience the magnificent Cubic revelations.

Ray states that "4 is the supreme number of the universe" and frequently divides continua into four classes, much like the Greeks did with the four humours and the four elements. More specifically, these continua tend to be cycles, which the 4 classes divide into quarters or quadrants. The classes are called corners, and there are several sets of them mentioned:

Division of quadrants: "Any dumb ass should know that a prime meridian does not just pass through the Greenwich point, but it also passes as a great circle through both poles, crossing the equator at 2 opposite points, dividing Earth into 2 halves of light and darkness, with each its own 24 hour rotation - in a single rotation of Earth. You should know that harmonic symmetry demands a second great circle meridian to create sunup and sundown corner quadrants?" Division of corners: "Each of the 4 corners of Earth is the beginning and ending of its own separate 24 hour day - all 4 simultaneous days within a single rotation of Earth." Note the following diagram from TimeCube.com:

http://www.timecube.com/graphic1.gif

Looking down the Cube's rotational axis, we see that the corners are labelled to be midday, sundown, midnight and sunup. It shows that 2 perpendicular lines divide the equator circle into 4 quadrants of midday-sundown, sundown-midnight, midnight-sunup, sunup-midday.

The four corners of human races are black, white, Asian, and Indian

From AboveGod.com: "Sunup represents Indian Race/Midday represents White Race/Sundown represents Asian Race/Midnight represents Black Race" (as we have seen, sunup/midday/etc are corners)

The four corners/stages of a person's lifetime are baby, child, parent, and grandparent

From TimeCube.com: "Time Cube proves a 1 face god impossible, due to 4 corner face metamorphic human - baby, child, parent and grandparent faces."

The four corners of a person's head are the face, two ears, and back of the head (Dr Ray says: "Humans are Cubic forms that rotate a 4 corner face lifetime.")

From TimeCube.com: "If I tell a human that his 4-corner head (nose, 2 ears and back corner) has only a 1-corner face, the dumb- ass will say to me - "prove it". He knows not that his face is a corner."

The four corners of Earth are the following: Midnight, Sunup, Midday and Sundown. (more on this below)

Already justified. I edited this description, noticing that it was erroneous the way it existed in the article.

The four corners of the day are midnight, 6 AM, noon, and 6 PM

This should probably be deleted for redundancy and potential confusion due to seasonal variation.

The four corners of the year are the two equinoxes and two solstices

Same concept as dividing the day -- like midday and midnight, the solstices are the diametrically opposed extremes; and like sunup and sundown, the equinoxes are the zero-value transition-points in between them. "Pedant teachers cannot comprehend that there are 4 simultaneous Years within a single rotation of Earth about the Sun. Each season has its own separate corner Year."

Image:Earth time cube.jpg

Visualisation of Earth's postulated rotation within a Time Cube

This image (right) shows the division into 4 corner-quadrants, already explained; the 4-corner square is projected between the poles to form a dilated cube. Dr Ray says: "Solar system, Earth sphere and human body all have a front, back and 2 sides which rotate between the 2 top and bottom poles - ceiling and floor parameters." Based on the previous diagram, we may consider "front, back and 2 sides" to represent corners -- i.e. front corner, back corner, 2 side corners. Rotation within a Time Cube confirmed by "Earth rotates within a Time Cube."

According to Ray, the four corners of the earth divide the earth into four quadrants. For example, the Sunup-Midday quadrant is the portion of the earth between Sunup and Midday. Even though polar regions do not experience the same phenomenon at different times of day, they too are partitioned into the four quadrants. This is to be expected, given that the 4 corners converge and cancel in the polar regions. To determine their precise alignment in these regions, they may be extrapolated from the more equatorial regions where they are better defined.

Division of quadrants already explained. I also explained how the square at the equator is projected between the north and south poles; extrapolation of corners from equatorial regions is inherent to this process.

In any one full rotation of Earth, each of the corners will experience a different style of day. One will start and end at midnight, one will start and end in the morning, one will start and end at midday, and one will start and end in the evening. These are 4 different styles of days.

From TimeCube.com: "You are not allowed to know truth - that in one rotation of Earth, there are:

- 24 hours in midnight to midnight. - 24 hours in sunup to sunup........... - 24 hours in midday to midday..... - 24 hours in sundown to sundown. - 4 days in only 1 Earth rotation... - 4 simultaneous years of the seasons."

The "start" of a day may be arbitrarily designated; according to the 4/16 rotation principle, any given single 24-hour rotation of Earth has 4 simultaneous days.

Self-explanatory; "one rotation of earth" is all that is specified, meaning that you could arbitrarily consider any 24-hour period you chose.

Each of these days is associated with one of the four generic races recognized by Ray: Midnight to midnight is the Black Race Day, sunup to sunup is the Indian Race Day, midday to midday is the White Race Day, and sundown to sundown is the Asian Race Day.

From AboveGod.com: "Sunup represents Indian Race/Midday represents White Race/Sundown represents Asian Race/Midnight represents Black Race"

He says "infinite days is stupidity", implying that it is correct to divide Earth into precisely four classes of location, and that a continuum of locations is incorrect.

We have already seen that Time Cube entails a division of 4. Self explanatory implication of infinite days quote.

He also calls the universal Greenwich Mean Time standard "bastardly queer" because it represents only one style of day. Anything associated with those who adhere to the standard, and beliefs related to the standard, are derisively referred to as "1-day", rather than "4-day".

From TimeCube.com: "The academia created 1 day greenwich time is bastardly queer and dooms future youth and nature to a hell."

He says that each corner of Earth experiences the four corners of the day. So that's a total of sixteen corner-configurations (or 16 "space times" as he says) experienced by humanity during every rotation of Earth.

From TimeCube.com "In a single rotation of the Earth sphere, each Time corner point rotates through the other 3-corner Time points, thus creating 16 corners, 96 hours and 4-simultaneous 24 hour Days within a single rotation of Earth - equated to a Higher Order of Life Time Cube."

Continued justification

Image:Time cube 1.png

The unique harmonicity of the 4-corner-quadrant division proves the supremacy of the number four.

(Image and caption explained below)

Dr Ray has stated that "4 is the supreme number of the universe. There is no 1 in 4-corner metamorphosis." The supremacy of the number 4 relates to the 4-corner-quadrant division, shown at right. A circle, such as Earth's equator, is divided into four 90-degree quadrants; and it is contained within a square, which has four 90-degree quadrants.

See diagram: http://www.timecube.com/graphic1.gif This confirms that Dr Ray does indeed divide the equator circle into four 90-degree quadrants, and position it within a square.

There is a correlation between the four right-angles of the centre division, and the four right-angles of the bounding polygon; and this harmonic correlation is unique. For instance, it would not exist were the circle divided into 3 120-degree sectors and enclosed within an equilateral triangle with 60-degree angles. This unique harmonicity inherent to the 4-corner-quadrant division is the basis for concluding the supremacy of 4.

Dr Ray refers to this corner-quadrant symmetry: "Any dumb ass should know that a prime meridian does not just pass through the Greenwich point, but it also passes as a great circle through both poles, crossing the equator at 2 opposite points, dividing Earth into 2 halves of light and darkness, with each its own 24 hour rotation - in a single rotation of Earth. You should know that harmonic symmetry demands a second great circle meridian to create sunup and sundown corner quadrants?"

He says that because the four corners of Earth each experience the year differently (One starts on midnight and ends on midnight, etc.), that there are also four years for every revolution of Earth around the Sun. Note that the 4-days are dependent on Earth existing in all of the 4 quadrants radiating from its centre, and so for there to be an additional 4-year simultaneity, the Earth would have to simultaneously exist in all of the 4 quadrants of its orbit. Given that this is not the case, it must be concluded that the cycle of the earth's 4 simultaneous years are a consequence of 4 simultaneous days in 1 earth-rotation, rather than an additional simultaneity.

From TimeCube.com: "The 4 quadrant corners of the Earth sphere rotate as a quad spiraling helix - thus creating 4 simultaneous days per each rotation and 4 simultaneous years per 1 orbit around Sun. Greenwich day is of stupidity." The 4 simultaneous days are linked to the 4 simultaneous years. Dr Ray has stated that an axially rotating planet travels a greater distance than one lacking such rotation. Dr Ray confirms: "4-corners are simultaneous, there is no 1, 2, or 3-corner." As shown in "4/16 rotation principle", it is obvious that without simultaneous existence of 4 perpendicular corners, a 4/16 rotation cannot occur.

Image:Time cube 2.png

From the 4/16 rotation principle, we obtain 16 total spacetime configurations, which include exactly 4 simultaneous days.

Dr Ray states that "The 4 corner quadrant Earth has 4-24 hour simultaneous Days within a single rotation of Earth". In accordance with the 4-corner-quadrant division, we divide the equator into 4 quadrants, and position it within a 4-corner square. The corners are positioned at midday, sundown, midnight and sunup. Midday and midnight are the major corners, with midday being the primary corner and midnight the opposite corner; sunup and sundown are the two minor corners, since they represent the transitions between the major corners. This Time Square is projected between the static opposites of the North and South poles to form a dilated Cube.

This content already justified. "Major" and "minor" terminology: "When the Sun shines upon Earth, 2 - major Time points are created on opposite sides of Earth - known as Midday and Midnight. Where the 2 major Time forces join, synergy creates 2 new minorTime points we recognize as Sunup and Sundown."

Let's say we have 1 person at each of the 4 corners at a point in time. Since we are considering zero time elapsed, the corners exist solely in space. They are Space Corners. Now, allowing 24 hours to elapse, there occurs a single full rotation — during which each person passes through the other 3 corners before returning to their own initial corner. They each experience 4 corners; and these corners are evident only while time elapses, meaning that they are Time Corners.

From TimeCube.com: "The 4-equidistant Time points can be considered as Time Square imprinted upon the circle of Earth. In a single rotation of the Earth sphere, each Time corner point rotates through the other 3-corner Time points"

Each person experiences 4 Time Corners — that is one day for them, one full cycle of light and dark. And we have 4 people, each with 4 Time Corners, yielding a total of 16 SpaceTime configurations (a unique combination of a space corner and a time corner). 16 equals 4-by-4; the 4 Time Corners which represent one day are multiplied by 4 to obtain the full 16 configurations. In other words, each of the four people experiences a separate day during that single rotation. This proves that there are 4 simultaneous days in one rotation of Earth.

Quote continued: "thus creating 16 corners, 96 hours and 4-simultaneous 24 hour Days within a single rotation of Earth - equated to a Higher Order of Life Time Cube. Ignorance of the Time Cube is evil."

Dr Ray has stated that "Earth [is] 2 opposite hemispheres rotating in opposite directions." Based on a flag displayed by him at the MIT lecture, on the opposite sides of which are illustrated opposite hemispheres, we confirm that this refers to the Earth rotating clockwise when viewed from the south pole, and counter-clockwise from the north pole. He states: "Planets [are] created via opposite rotating poles.", and claims to posess NASA photos in which lava at the equator of a moon flows in opposite directions.

Self-explanatory. I have an image of this flag that I may add to the article.

Dr Ray also states "Truth in Opposites contradict a god entity.", and he frequently contrasts the concept of opposites with the concepts of "singularity" and "entity" associated with 1-corner perspectives. He says: "Earth is not an entity"; "YOU can't handle Cubic Time, Cubic Life or Cubic Truth - for inside of Time Cube equates the most magnificent symmetry of opposites existing within the universe - for every corner has an equal opposite corner, every 2 corners has an equal opposite 2 corners, every tri-corner has an equal opposite tri-corner and every 4 corners has an equal opposite 4 corners. No human or god can utter such powerful ineffable opposite Cubic Truth. God is singularity. Evil singularity dooms Opposite Creation."

Quotes make it clear that he is indeed contrasting opposites with "singularity" and "entity".

Dr Ray associates a 1-corner singularity perspective with linear time, and states that "Linear, singularity and trinity equate to evil math within Nature's Cubic Creation." Referring to the 4/16 rotation principle, it is reasoned that since the 4 Space Corners occupy 2 dimensions (a plane) of space, the 4 Time Corners must likewise occupy 2 dimensions of Time. This disproves the notion of linear time, whereby Time only has 1 dimension. It is seen that Time is Cubic, in that Time is 3-dimensional; these 3 dimensions would include the 2 dimensions for the time corners in addition to the 1 dimension of linear time that we perceive.

From TimeCube.com: "There is proof that 3 dimensional math is erroneous, and that linear Time is actually of a Cubic nature. Ignoring Cubium indicts you evil."

The combination of the four-corner rotation of the day, existing between the static Opposites of the North and South Poles, and the four stages of a person's life, existing between the opposites of Masculinity and Femininity, is referred to as the 4/16 Time Cube. Dr Ray states: "Creation has 2 sex poles and 4 corner races of humans.",

We have seen how the 4-corner day-rotation exists between the poles. From TimeCube.com: "Humans born of 2 opposites, femininity and masculinity, to a 4-corner metamorphosis: baby, child, parent, gd.parent."

A human lifetime is divided into four corners. Ray says that, at any given point in time, a person is one-cornered (imperfect) instead of four-cornered (perfect) because their perspective is based on experience, and their experience is based on which stage of life they are in.

This "experience" description may need to be changed; all I have heard Dr Ray say about experience is that grandparents are necessary to impart wisdom to the community's parents and children. However, the 4-corner/1-corner part is justified: "Human exist as personified 4-corner pyramid but with only a 1-corner perspective during a 4-corner rotation, or 4-stage metamorphosis." "Humans born of 2 opposites, femininity and masculinity, to a 4-corner metamorphosis: baby, child, parent, gd.parent."

A person's age is not on a linear continuum; instead, when a person advances to the next corner of their lifetime, their old corner dies. This forms a 4-stage continuum, like a circle divided into 4 quadrants. Furthermore, it is arguable that the transitions between life stages are somewhat indefinite, and that the precise 4-corner division functions as a useful approximation of this.

Dr Ray has stated that individual behaviour is erratic, and that different people in the village have varying characteristics , with statistical result being an average of 4. That's the basis for the indefinite approximation. He says: "There is no 1-corner god in 4-corner lifetime stages of human evolution metamorphosis ... wherein born baby dies to child, child dies to parent & parent dies to grand-parent corner. Adults evolve, not born. Singularity equates sex with the baby."

During his appearance on techTV, Ray said of people: "A human has a top and bottom, front and back, and two sides. Now the human head has four corners: nose, two ears, and the back corner, but they only have a one-corner face, it's only one-fourth of who they think they are. One corner -- but they go around four corners in a lifetime: the baby, the child, the parent, and the grandparent. We don't recognize human metamorphosis."

(self-explanatory)

Image:Gene ray time cube.jpg

Gene Ray, self-proclaimed discoverer of Nature's Harmonic Simultaneous 4-Day Time Cube (right).

He also separates humanity into two "sex poles", male and female, and the four corners of complexion. Like other divisions into four, he allows no mixture of classes; in this case, he stands against interracial reproduction. He says: "Interracial marriage is stupid and evil for it creates a child not of either race, betraying the child and both the races." He relates this to America's current state as follows: "All past Great Civilizations have been destroyed by minorities."; "Blacks are enslaving whites - and will soon extract revenge."

From TimeCube.com: "CREATION HAS TWO SEX POLES & 4 CORNER RACES OF HUMANS. GOD IS CORNERED AS A QUEER." "There is proof that all humans exist between the 2 opposites of femininity and masculinity, and would cancel each other out if unified as academic or religious "singularity" - equating to stupidity and suicide for humanity."

According to him (on AboveGod.com), "If the 4 racial components of 2 sex pole hemispheres agreed to a cubing of the sphere as a spiritual unity, heavenly music of cubed sphere could be audible on Earth simultaneously to every human ear, not discord, but harmony." He doesn't believe that one race is supreme, but he does believe that they should remain separate and should stay in the geographical regions where they originated, stating "Racial integration equals 'Racial Slop'"[2]. "Cubing the sphere" apparently means separating the spherical world into four quadrants (the sides of the cube) and two poles (the top and bottom of the cube).

Explained above that different races correlate to different geographical regions, and that they should remain separate to avoid racial slop. We have seen above how the 4-corner-quadrant two-pole Cube is related to the Earth-sphere.

He also correlates the four races with the four corners of the day, based on the lightness or darkness in each:
: "The simultaneous 4 human races debunks a God for any race.
:* Sunup represents Indian Race
:* Midday represents White Race
:* Sundown represents Asian Race
:* Midnight represents Black (Negro) Race"

(self-explanatory)

I will continue to reference the article's content later. If there are no disputes, the content justified above may be re-inserted. The contents of Cheradenine's version need not be retained in their current form, as I previously integrated them into the version to which I've been reverting. I will have to proceed through the entire article text, since the following request of mine was ignored: "Cheradenine, you are again refusing to discuss the specific content. Surely you cannot believe everything you deleted had absolutely nothing to do with Dr Ray's scriptures -- especially given that it included quotes of him to give context? You need to state which particular parts of the article you consider original research."

(More content added -- see Continued justification)

Well, there are disputes.

1. We will not call anybody Academians - the term is not frequently used and it amounts to stylistic propaganda.

2. Gene Ray is not a doctor of anything, so don't call him one.

3. When referring to outlandish claims made by people, we don’t say, for example, Dr Ray explains that many ordinary humans... "Claims" is better.

"Explains" is acceptable, as he is but explaining the theory that he puts forth.

4. The "explanations" in your version are about as coherent as Timecube itself: because contrary to the proven 4-corner Cubic truth, their beliefs entail self-aggrandising and pseudo-religious "Word-Worship", which is seen to equate to only 1 corner, or a manifestation of what Dr Ray refers to as "Singularity". I think that one speaks for itself. Oh yeah, and dont call it the proven 4-corner Cubic truth

5.Views of Time Cube, of the website and of Dr Ray are varied - You and Gene Ray are the only ones I know of claiming to take this seriously. The general perception is that Ray is either joking or of questionable mental health.

6. "Some critics invoke Academic scientific principles" This statement clearly vilifies science, which is not appropriate on Wkipedia. What you mean is that critics rely on the scientific method, and that Timecube is necessarily rejected by science, as it offers no testable hypotheses.

Furthermore, I have another objection to taking Timecube seriously. The earth is not a perfect sphere, but rather, an oblate spheroid (the equator swells because of the centrifugal force generated by rotation). If it were to be encased by a "cube", as it is in the diagram you keep inserting, that "cube" would not be a cube, it would be a rectangular prism. Ok now I'm done, this is just silly. Even if we are willing to accept that your presence here is not trolling of the same kind as CubicAO and Timecube itself (which I'm not), your version is still sloppy and biased. I realize you're having a good time with all this, but please, Wikipedia is actually a sincere venture. Mgw 01:33, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, use "academics" or "academicians" instead.

He is a doctor of Cubicism, but remove the "Dr"s if you wish.

For substantiation of "proven", we may refer to the sections in which proof is presented.

Two Cubic concepts:

4-corner Cubic truth
1-corner singularity

The 4-corner Cubic truth contradicts any belief in 1-corner singularity. Also, self-aggrandising and pseudo-religious "Word-Worship" are associated with, or are manifestations of, 1-corner singularity. They are therefore contrary to the 4-corner Cubic truth. That should make it clear, although I'd have thought it already clear.

The Time Cube petition contains signatures supporting Time Cube, and in this article Eoin Grosch (organiser of the April 14 Georgia Tech Cube-lecture) confirms the existence of "hardcore cubers". Let's allow NPOV in the article.

It does not vilify science; merely disregards any claim of science representing a supreme, unquestionable authority. That's NPOV, and is appropriate. See Talk:Gene Ray for discussion of testable/observable Cubic hypotheses.

The rotational dilation is explained in the full version, if you would bother to read it all the way through. The Cube is dilated, but it approaches zero dilation (a perfect cube) as Earth's rotation is slowed. Furthermore, the dilation creates a non-arbitrary basis for designating four of the edges "corners".

I support NPOV, but other users will have to co-operate. That would involve not deleting almost all the article text to push their own POV.

1. Please respond in one continuous section after the latest comment on the talk page, for clarity. My points are numbered to make it easy to refer to them.

2. I have read the section beginning with Ray uses this model to represent the Earth's rotation... It is incoherent. the cube must also be dilated by the same magnitude. This creates a square prism A dilated cube is not a square prism. It is rectangular. I consider that section, like most of your other justifications, to be a Chewbacca Defense.

3. Gene Ray is not a doctor, and Cubicism is not a field of study. Your mere assertion that Ray is a doctor shows either that this is a joke to you, or that you are delusional. I don't mean that as an insult, but it is not sensible to call Ray a doctor because he pronounced himself one.

4. You have proven nothing, as many other users will attest, and your references to "proven" theories are laughable.

5. The link you provided offers no proof of sincere followers, simply an allegation of followers by one student who seems to be mocking Ray. Furthermore, the timecube petition is a series of mocking jokes at the expense of Ray and Timecube.

6. Please define "self-aggrandising and pseudo-religious 'Word-Worship'", along with an explanation of how it's NPOV to refer ANYTHING that way.

7. I have read the testable hypothesis discussion on Talk:Gene Ray, and again, you have provided not a single coherent testable hypothesis. On that page you sought to "define manifestations of Cubic geometry evident in reality" = not a testable hypothesis. You added, "A second observable influence is the life that has evolved on Earth, representing an interaction between chaos and Time Cube." = not a testable hypothesis (even if we accept that it is an "observable influence"). Please stop referring to nonsense as though you have already done the work. Mgw 06:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Anon, please read this if you are going to respond to me again. Regardless of how you feel about Timecube, it is fair to say that in its current state of exposition, it offers not a single TESTABLE hypothesis, as I argue above. Now, whether or not science "[represents] a supreme, unquestionable authority" or not is an entirely differnet question from whether your version belongs on Wikipedia. Wikipedia relies on published reaserch in peer reviewed journals, which, broadly speaking, rely on the scientific method. You may be correct that science is not "a supreme, unquestionable authority", but if you would like to discuss Timecube from outside the framework of science, Wikipedia is not the venue for you. Perhaps your website, where you are free to speak your mind, is a better place to discuss this without the constraints of science (evil-ass or otherwise). Science may be fallible, but that does not imply that we will abandon it on Wikipedia becuase you dont like it.

My other objections stand. Mgw 06:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

1. Please respond in one continuous section after the latest comment on the talk page, for clarity. My points are numbered to make it easy to refer to them.

4. You have proven nothing, as many other users will attest, and your references to "proven" theories are laughable.

6. Please define "self-aggrandising and pseudo-religious 'Word-Worship'", along with an explanation of how it's NPOV to refer ANYTHING that way.

My other objections stand. Mgw 06:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

2. The Cube is dilated along its rotational axis. That axis passes through the centre of the "top" face and centre of the "bottom" face. As a result, all faces OTHER THAN the top and bottom become rectangular. However, the top and bottom remain square, meaning that it is a square prism.

3. I am not under any delusion that Dr Ray has received a doctorate from academic institutions; rather, I agree with his justification that he had to bestow it upon himself. But as I said, go ahead and remove the "Dr"s from the article if you so desire.

4. The full article contains explanations, such as that of the 4/16 rotation principle, claimed by Dr Ray and myself as proof. Those claimed proofs are what we are referring to. For NPOV, you may alter it to something like "claimed to be proven".

5. "seems to be mocking Ray" is hardly a solid argument; I didn't detect any mockery, at least in the part referring to "hardcore cubers". Although some of the petition signatures are insincere, one cannot claim this for all of them.

6. "Self-aggrandising": self-explanatory. "Pseudo-religious word-worship": when words are considered a supreme authority. For example, believing in the Bible's words as a supreme authority would be religious word-worship. An example of the pseudo-religious type would be faith in the claims and suggestions of a politician or high-ranking Academian. This is NPOV because we're not stating that anything IS this way; we're stating that it's SEEN to be.

7. What's testable is the presence or non-presence of the Cube-manifestations. For instance, testing the hypothesis that life on Earth, having evolved according to Cubic principles, possesses Cubic properties. See Cubiform and Pyramidal Lifeforms for empirical confirmation of this hypothesis.

Finally, Wikipedia is a lot more than a summary of everything published in peer-reviewed academic journals over the past century. Surely I don't have to give links to some of the many Wikipedia articles that have approximately nothing to do with anything in any peer-reviewed journal. As I have argued previously on this page (some of my arguments have been archived: see top of the page), Time Cube is well-known and often-discussed, therefore deserving inclusion.

Time Cube is compatible with science and logic; however, it may lack compatibility with certain arbitrary, dogmatic Academian conventions relating thereto. That's not a problem, because as I said, Wikipedia covers a range of content broader than Academian pursuits.

1. A cube is, by definition, formed by exaclty 6 sqaures of exactly the same size. If you have 4 slightly larger squares and 2 slighly smaller, it's not a cube, end of story. The result is a rectangular prism.

2.About science and testability: yes, you are correct to observe that many articles have nothing to do with science. But where there is dispute, where there is controversy, Wikipedia policy makes it abundantly clear that resaerch should come from legitimate, peer-reviewed publications. You cannot argue that these do not rely on observation, hypothesis, and testability: the scientific method. I remind you that you have not provided a testable hypothesis. You can very well claim that certain things are the results of the truth of Timecube, but you know they are not tesable (i.e., the number 4 exists somewhere in nature does not imply time is cubic). In asserting that a few things on earth you beleive to be a result of the cube proove its existence, you are commiting the Fallacy of the single cause, the Fallacy of composition, and the fallacy of False choice.

An analogy: the existence of the orange, the grapefruit, and lesser citrus, which are spherical, are clear evidence that cubes do not exist. Or better yet: We can reasonably expect the websites of insane people to contain long strings of text, often in many colors, in varying font size, and of limited coherence. Therefore, Gene Ray is insane. These are clearly absurd. So is your claim that your "hypotheses" are "testable". The "presence or non-presence of the Cube-manifestations" is nonsense of precisely the sname kind, it is another Chewbacca Defense, amd even if it weren't, you have a sample size of 1 (i.e. what you claim to be the results of the cube you can only find on one planet). Singularity Stupid. I await a testable hypothesis. Mgw 15:41, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

1. Correct, the square prism is not a cube; rather, it is a DILATED cube. We specify that it's dilated (in such a way that it has 2 square faces the same size and 4 rectangular faces smaller than them). I already explained that it's dilated, so don't put words in my mouth.

2. I'm not arguing that peer-reviewed publications do not rely on observation and testability. But I am arguing that observation and testability can exist independently of such publications, as is the case here.

The proof that Time is Cubic may be viewed at Time is Cubic, not Linear. It invokes the 4/16 Rotation Principle, not observations of 4 in nature. This is a logical proof, pertaining to philosophy. Need I point you to some of the many established Wikipedia articles in which philosophical concepts are discussed?

Fallacy of the single cause only applicable where reasonable grounds exist for the possibility of multiple causes. Otherwise, Occam's razor favours simplicity. What are your suggested alternative causes, and the basis of each? Fallacy of composition only applicable given actual observations to which the principle doesn't apply; otherwise, Occam's razor applies again. (See below for explanations of claimed anti-Cubic observations.) I am not sure how False choice applies; please explain. See article Cubic Logic.

Orange, grapefruit, etc. have a top and bottom. The top is where the fruit joins the stem; the bottom, the point diametrically opposed (often physiologically observable as a small marking or protrusion). Between these two static opposites, we designate 4 sides and 4 corners/vertical-edges: their orientation may be dictated by the position of the Sun, or the relative position of the centre of the plant. We don't designate 6 or 10 sides or any other arbitrary number, because it is the 4-corner-quadrant division that has been proven supreme.

I disagree with your statement that TimeCube.com's appearance indicates insanity. Furthermore, Dr Ray's sanity has nothing to do with the validity of the actual theory; to claim so would constitute an "ad hominem" attack. We must focus on the arguments that have been set forth, rather than the people responsible for doing so.

"Presence or non-presence of the Cube-manifestations" is not nonsense. NASA once launched an instrument designed to test for spacetime warping caused by Earth's rotation. It tests for the presence or non-presence of said warping. Said warping would be a manifestation of relativity. So NASA is testing for presence or non-presence of relativity-manifestations. Is that nonsense?

Testable predictions (a few of them) already stated.

This is clearly a long and involved debate and I shouldn't really get involved, but I thought I would comment on "self-aggrandising pseudo-religious word-worship". The one guy put forward his explanation, but I don't think it is correct. I think "self-aggrandising pseudo-religious word-worship" is actually an example of the subtle self references to Time Cube itself. Consider the website and its content:

self-aggrandising: the page claims "I am the greatest thinker and wisest human" - how much more self-aggrandising can you get?
pseudo-religious: I think this is also pretty clear - Time Cube is both pseudo-scientific and pseudo-religious.
word-worship: Just read the page - endless tracts repeating the same thing over and over again in slightly different words, the creation of neologisms and new words for which definitions are rarely if ever given - it's pretty clearly word worship.

Put simply, the Time Cube website represents the most perfect example of self-aggrandising semi-religious word-worship available. And I think that's the point: it's a subtle self referential joke (sort of). I think of it as akin to discordianism, or perhaps absurdist anarchism - it tries to debunk prevailing wisdom and uncritical beliefs by presenting nonsense that claims to be critical belief (thus showing that in a sense everythign is nonsense). It is, in it's own way, genius. To say you understand Time Cube (as the guy here does) is to entirely fail to get it. It would be akin to understanding creation science by reading the Objective Christian Ministries page mentioned in the article.

I do not see it that way. Gene Ray must announce his rightful titles to alert humans to the ineffable Cubic Truth against which they have been blinded. Time Cube is not pseudo-religious; rather, it transcends religion. It is scientific, but does not necessarily conform to arbitary Academian pedantic dogma. I find that the meaning of the scriptures is clear, with sufficient study; and that they are not nonsense, but quite comprehensible. See Cubic Awareness Online for explanations supplementing those on the official Time Cube sites.

I agree with that, though I have been unable to determine whether this anonymous user is aware that timecube is a joke, and thus a troll, or whether he/she sincerely believes it. While it is hard to imagine anyone investing so much time in such a joke (this user is also the author of CubicAO [3]), though it is equally hard to imagine anyone taking timecube so seriously. Perhaps this user is giving subtle signs that he/she is a troll, like when he/she accused me of being a "human android blockhead"...or was it "human blockhead android"? Mgw 01:21, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

It was "human blockhead android". If Gene is joking, he certainly has thoroughly fooled me. Maybe you should look past your "joke"/"troll" defense mechanisms and think rationally to discover that "Truth is Cubic. Time is Cubic... Life is Cubic.... Form is Cubic.. Family is Cubic.. Village is Cubic.. Evil is cubeless. Self is cubeless. God is cubeless. Language is a human invention of an evil cubeless singularity."

Need I say more? Mgw 05:26, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, if you want to disprove Time Cube or justify deletion of article content. But I will not be objecting if you allow the magnificent Cubic Truth to prevail.

Theory

Time Cube is not a scientific theory. Replace all instances of "theory" with "hypothesis" or "claim". --brian0918 ™ 21:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I just made a go-through of Talk:Time Cube/Proposed trimmed article and made this change there. Bryan 23:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Brian0918, Time Cube is indeed a scientific and philosophical theory, as has been demonstrated in discussion Kosebamse's anti-Cubic crusade|Kosebamse's anti-Cubic crusade. This does not mean that it necessarily conforms to all arbitrary dogma worshipped by Academian scientists. Thus far, I have found such dogma to amount to nothing more than baseless religious beliefs. Assuming that you can substantiate any of it, you will need to actually do so.

So you're saying that Time Cube is a scientific and philosophical theory, but not what "academians" think of as a theory? You seem to be using some different definition of "theory" than any that I'm aware of offhand. Could you dig up a dictionary definition matching it, please? Or, failing that, please find a different word that actually means what you're trying to say here.

From dictionary.com, it would principally be this definition: "The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice". We notice that this does not specify that a theory must conform to baseless Academian dogma. We are using merely "theory", not "Academic theory".

And as for referring me to the "justification" section of the talk page above when arguing for the inclusion of some of the stuff I trimmed in the /proposed subpage, that's not really helpful. I've tried reading that section and I'm finding it only marginally more comprehensible than the Time Cube page itself, and lacking adequate references to the Time Cube page or other external sources to verify the statements you're making. Saying that quotes are "self explanatory" is completely unhelpful, the mere fact that I'm asking for clarification should indicate that they're not. Bryan 05:19, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

The justification does indeed include quotes from TimeCube.com which support the article text. I may have to copy the relevant justification sections to the proposed article subpage, if you yourself do not wish to take the simple step of locating them.

Please don't feed the [insert term here]. Original research is not allowed on Wikipedia, so it doesn't matter how much this anon discusses it on Wikipedia, it'll never be allowed in the article. Very simple. --brian0918 ™ 15:22, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Brian0918, you may have missed a subtle point. I was not arguing that original research should be included; rather, I was arguing that the content proposed for inclusion was not original research.

I know, at this point I'm suspecting this anon is just not going to be able to accept an article that fits Wikipedia's policies. I'm just trying to be as nice as possible and cross every "t" along the way. That said, I still think there are some salvageable bits in the old version; the "proposed" version is getting close to something I'd be willing to run with. Here's hoping the transition will be relatively bloodless when the article's protection comes off. Bryan 17:11, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, this is getting silly. Talk:Time Cube/Proposed trimmed article is becoming just as hard to follow as the "Justification" section above, the anon has copied some chunks of it in verbatim. I started making an attempt to clean it up just now, but I quit after a few minutes' effort - based on past experience with this person's arguments I don't see any real hope of either understanding what he's talking about or convincing him to let it drop. Since I'm the one that protected the article I can't just walk away, but at the same time I'm not being paid enough for this. A quick text search of archived talk doesn't show any references to old RfCs on this issue so I'm going to post one myself and see whether anyone else has ideas on how we can move forward here. Bryan 04:15, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I suppose a revert is one easy way to clean it up. But if the anon edit-wars over the proposed trimmed article, do I protect it and start a /proposed/proposed trimmed article to work on instead? :) Anon, please - if you want your comments to have any impact at all, you're going to have to try harder to make them easy to follow. Pretend for sake of argument that nothing is self-evident, even if you think it is. And perhaps consider taking your version of this article to some other host that has different standards than Wikipedia, since I suspect you're not going to be happy with whatever ends up on this page in the end. Bryan 04:23, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Bryan, I have tried to explain it clearly, but it would be good if you could actually edit the proposed trimmed article and be more specific about which points require further explanation.

Again, it's best to ignore these likes. And as I already stated, it doesn't matter what his reasoning and arguments are, they'll be his own, and thus will be original research. --brian0918 ™ 04:26, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

They'll be my own arguments that the content is not original research, and thus will not be original research.

Be that as it may, he's shown a willingness to engage in long-term edit warring so I was hoping to convince him to lay off of that with a suitable compromise. It'd be easier than just fighting it out, or at least it seemed that way before I tried my hand at it. Oh well, I guess some conflicts just can't be resolved this way. Bryan 04:46, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives

Talk:Time Cube/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

"Cleanup" cut too much

Reverting

Closed deletion listing

Should the article be temporarily protected?

Justification of article content

Continued justification

Theory

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search