Talk:Time Cube/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Please note, this archive is redirected from "Ineffable_Cubic_Truth_contradicts_Academic_Pedantry" - not a NPOV title! Anilocra 16:07, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Anon Request

20/9/2004: Please don't delete too much of it... i have never laughed so heartily at a wikipedia article :P

Time Cube Supporters

Okay, it's April 1st, so let's do things backward and undo the joke. Can we own up to the fact that the "Time Cube supporters" is just a very elaborate trolling effort? Search the web, and dig around. There are old expired forums [1] from 2002 (that are more obvious trolling efforts), that link to a now expired website cubarian.com. Using the wayback machine we see that it was short lived [2]. In 2002 it was sort of a primitive model for the current CubicAO site, but just over a year later it converted into webcam porn site. In the meantime they make clear their parody nature with for instance, links to this [3] as "One of only two accredited universities worldwide which teaches regular courses in Time Cube theory.".

Equally interestingly in the old forums though (aside from the obvious trolling) are the links to [4] which can be found here [5], or again in the wayback machine. Head there and you find the pages of Francois Tremblay, including this page about time cube [6]. Of course it is Francois that owns and created the the new Time Cube Forum at [7], where he does some very obvious trolling. Of course Francois states specifically that CubicAO is a parody site - and given its remarkable similarity to the Cubarian.com parody site I think it's pretty clear that's the case. Dig even further with the wayback machine and trace individual contributors to the various forums, and you'll find the development of the "Time Cube troll" even more clear.

In the meantime we have someone with a 211.28.*.* ip address doing the same sort of trolling in the discussion page here. All of that would be fine and amusing, except that the same ip address has been busy making sure the Wikipedia page maintains the joke. Wikipedia is a place for legitimate information, not a place for trolls to have their fun. Can we, for April 1st, undo the joke and fix the page? Cheradenine

Cheradenine (are you the 65.95 anon?), you are correct in saying that "Wikipedia is a place for legitimate information". That means we need to stick to the facts, rather than engaging in conspiracy theories. I am not Francois Tremblay, and you have no right to hold his erroneous judgement against the wonderful CubicAO website.

I suggest that you drop this dumb tactic of "Website A bears a slight similarity to Website B, therefore let's censor all mention of Time Cube on Wikipedia". I further suggest that you engage in rational argument rather than baseless "ad hominem" attacks, and that you thereby determine whether your anti-Cubic stance actually holds water. Are you willing to do so, or are you afraid???

I'll take that as a no. Am I willing to debate? Unlike the stupid sod you mistake me for, I am not really interested in getting baited into silly arguments. For anyone else actually reading the talk page: All I'm asking for is that the page be returned to being about Gene Ray's Time Cube web pages, instead a trolling platform for a purely peripheral parody website. Cheradenine

Exactly; what sort of stupid sod would get baited into a silly round-earth heliocentric argument, when everyone knows that the Earth is flat and the centre of the universe and we should all genuflect to Jesus? You will need to substantiate your assertion of irrelevance by specifying which aspects of the page do not relate to the topic; the topic being Dr Ray's Cubic scriptures and their immediate impact.

Time Cube "theory" is untested, and can hardly be viewed as accepted. You are welcome to argue that it is foolish to dismiss it, but Wikipedia has a clear policy with regard to untested and unaccepted original research. That policy is not to include it. I have cleaned up the article to be a discussion of Time Cube with regard to the reasons it has gained notability - the surreal and humour value of Gene Ray's website as a classic crank website. If you wish to troll with your "Time Cube theory" you are welcome to - just take it somewhere other than Wikipedia because it doesn't belong here.

Four cornered?

Has this idiot not noticed that cubes are not 4-cornered, but rather have 8 vertices? Also 6 faces, and 3 faces meeting at each vertex. There's almost nothing fourish about a cube! --Jerzy(t) 19:57, 2004 Jun 20 (UTC)

Criticism of this was the subject of the section whose removal I questioned above. Perhaps some version of it should be restored after all. Bryan 21:09, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's quite simple, Jerzy. The cube ROTATES about an axis passing through the centre of one face and the centre of an opposite face. Just like in a 4-corner room, the Cube's corners are the VERTICAL EDGES; more specifically, the four edges that are parallel to the rotational axis. And the faces can then be categorised into a group of 2 and group of 4; the group of 2 includes the ones to which the axis is normal (these may be interchangeably referred to as the Top and Bottom) and the other 4 are like the 4 walls of a room; the EDGES (not vertices) joining them are the 4 CORNERS.

Yes, the Cube is not inherently "fourish"; the number four is derived from the ROTATING cube that I have described. Also note that the rotating cube is dilated; as the rotational speed slows down and approaches zero, the magnitude of dilation also approaches zero. Now may I ask whom you are calling an "idiot"? I'd say if you cannot understand these simple concepts, then maybe YOU are an idiot.

I apologize for my reckless user of the wildly inappropriate term "idiot", which denotes lack of raw mental power. "Maniac" is closer to the case, as suggested by imagining that rooms are four cornered from their cubical status rather than from being what even idiots call "rectangular" or "square-cornered", and imagining that rotation affects corner count. --Jerzy(t) 16:22, 2004 Jul 4 (UTC)

Jerzy, the Cube-like room is merely an ANALOGY. The 4 corners of a room are the vertical edges, right? Now if we have a non-rotating cube, it is not possible to non-arbitrarily designate four of its twelve edges as corners. (The corners are the VERTICAL EDGES.) But if the Cube is rotating about an axis that passes through the centre of one face and the centre of the opposite face, then we can say that the 4 edges parallel to the rotational axis are the 4 CORNERS, and again note that I have defined CORNERS as VERTICAL EDGES (more specifically, edges parallel to the rotational axis).

I think what you meant by ""rectangular" or "square-cornered"" is that a room is as a rectangle projected along the vertical axis. Well, this is perfectly compliant with what I've described; project a rotating square along an axis that passes through its centre and is normal (perpendicular) to it, and you will get a rotating dilated Cube (it will only be undilated if you projected it along a distance equal to the square's side length).

Did I say that rotation affects corner count? No I did not, so maybe you should read my posts more carefully in future. What I did say was that just as the direction of gravity defines which of the 6 faces of a room are the 4 Walls, the orientation of the Cube's rotational axis defines the orientation of its 4 corners; and I also mentioned that rotation causes dilation along the rotational axis.

The validity of what you are trying to get across is not mirrored in the comprehencability[sic] of your argument. A simplification would indicate perspective and dimensionality. The two-dimensional representation is the only measured state for this quadrant theory, and the two-dimensional representation mirrors the three-dimensional representation only when the line of perspective is directly perpendicular to the face of the cube. At any time other than the precise time that the three and two dimensional representations are the same, the quadrant theory no longer applies. Flying Hamster 07:03, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually I don't quite comprehend what you're saying above. By "perspective" are you referring to the perpendicular axis along which the 4-corner square is projected to form the 4-corner Cube? I can't see why the axis'[sic] alignment would shift such that it'd no longer be perpendicular.

One's saying that only viewing it face on do the top and bottom disappear. lysdexia 21:43, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Funny

After reading it for the second time, I suddenly found Gene Ray's website to be the funniest thing I'd ever seen. Something in my mind clicked over from scepticism to overwhelming amusement at its bizarreness. Hence I am now compromised to the point where the only words of criticism I can muster are Evil Ass Educators Suppress Time Cube, and dumb ass students condone such evil. Cubeless institutions are spreaders of evil, and students lack mentality to challenge it. And ain't it the truth. -- Tim Starling 07:50, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

It's a joke

There was some talk on the discussion page about the fact that the entire timecube project is a joke. Someone called it "an elaborate tolling effort" I think. Is there some reason there is no mention in the article of the evidence of this? Mgw 00:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Because it is not "an elaborate tolling[sic] effort"? True, some websites in the past have satirised Time Cube in ways that could be construed as trolling. But overall, it's a serious -- and TRUE -- theory, that should be accorded proper respect and not tainted with unfounded accusations such as those previously put forth by various stupid and evil Academian wikipedia editors.

Ok, but shouldn't there be mention of the evidence that suggests it is a joke, even if you dont think it is? Mgw 08:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If there is legitimate evidence, then yes. But I doubt that there is anything to these claims other than speculation and conspiracy theories.