Talk:Time Cube/Archive 13

message: Has anyone noticed that timecube.com now includes:
 Opposite sexes created you.
 Ignorance of the Time Cube, Life Cube &
 Ineffable Truth Cube, indicts you Stupid.
 Ignoring Cubic Creation indicts you evil.
 Singularity God impossible.
 Wikipedia allowing the educated stupid
 to evaluate the 4 simultaneous 24 hr. days
 within a single rotation of Earth, equates
 allowing atheist to proof-read the bible.
William M. Connolley 21:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, there are more than 4 simultaneous 24-hour days: there are 24 of them. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 23:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hence his hatred for GMT heath1444
--------
out of curiosity, how would you disprove the claim on the article? It's in all liklihood perfectly true given the givens. The problem is the givens make no sense. 24.5.125.232 06:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-reference 

message: "Sunup represents Indian Race; Midday represents White Race; Sundown represents Asian Race; Midnight represents Black Race."
According to The Racial State (Cambridge University Press), page 24, this idea was postulated by Carl Gustav Carus (1789-1869), only the "sundown" & "sunup" races are reversed, at least according to my reference. To him it states, this categorization reflected their different amounts of "inner illumination". Nagelfar 13:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racial Claims 

message: I am deeply confused by just why this is such a talked about issue. First of all, TimeCube is not a scientific theory, it is not based on well founded mathematics, it can not make any predictions and it can produce no working values that would agree with observable reality. To quote from the "Proof" of Time Cube:
CASE 31
(Cubic Law of Falsity)
From CASE 28, truth, being consistency, is directly contravened by anything that is inconsistent. Inconsistencies are therefore synonymous with falsities. Inconsistencies are to be considered false, not true.
This is the most important feature that rules this out as a scientific theory.  A theory doesn't exclude anything, it might be known that a theory does not extend to all possibilities but if at any point real data disagrees with a theory this is where the theory needs to be modified or a new theory needed (I give reference to the history of say, Physics).  By stating that anything inconsistent with TimeCube is just false, it's a sure way to prove TimeCube can be only the correct "Theory of everything".  As TimeCube claims to be the theory of everything, can I ask what it predicts the mass of the Higgs Boson to be? and what are the views on warped space time, how many dimensions are there in total, and what caused the big bang (Assuming TimeCube allows for the big bang?)
I am not going to go in to the trickery of the mathemtical proofs and axioms to disprove the "mathematics" of TimeCube, most people are not qualified to do so and this is why they disagree with scholars from the last 300 years.  I wouldn't sit an 12 year old in front of Einsteins Field Equations and say "have a play, see if you can prove 0 equals infiinity" and neither should people without proper formal education in the field of mathematics seek to do so.
I strongly disagree with the basic premises of all his proofs, I'll start with each one:
The axiomatic proof states:
There is a harmonic correlation between the two sets of diametrically opposed directions. This correlation stands as a fundamental property of the first level of existence. It exists within this first level, and what it forms is a principle of static, equal opposites.  Harmonic correlation? There is a sinusoidal relation between them? I see no evidence of that proof.  Then to go on and say that this is a fundamental property of existence is just so sweeping he might as well have said that the fundamental property of existence is that everything exists on the back of a giant turtle in space. My point is that there is no justification for his opinions, they are just disguised as facts.
The Epistemological Proof:
If a concept is consistent with reality, then it is true. Quantum mechanics kind of goes against the grain of what people judge to be reality, who decides what reality is in this definition? Creationists think god created the world, that's their 'reality', evolutionists think that we got here by a slow random process that takes millions of years, that is their 'reality'.  Creating a four corner cube out of words is a little ridiculous in my opinion, it doesn't really serve a useful function does it?
The scientific proof isn't actually worth my time to go through and pick out the bad points.  Disproving infinity is... interesting. 
At the end of the day, Time Cube represents little more than a quasi scientific (i.e. the wording is intended to appear scientific) in order to disprove existence of a god.  I am confused why this topic is given so much time and in all honestly, I would put this down to "crackpot" not an educated theorist.  The author has given no thought to real proofs or predictions, just created a set of (unfounded) premises and built on them to get to the conclusion that there is no omnipotent being out there.
Think I might start one myself, I'll prove that the world is flat, I think time should be 0, as everything cancels to zero and I'll go from there. Jazzygm 11:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entertaining a bad idea 

message: I floated the TOC to the right as it was pushing the body of the article too far down IMO. Does this look ok in other resolutions? Anilocra 13:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looked much, much better before. If you want to shorten the TOC, there are plenty of ways to do that aside from floating. -Silence 13:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added headers to remind newbies how to sign their comments.  Hopefully our anons will pay heed.---CH 03:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TOC 

message: I salute you on this highly NEUTRAL articvle. really. quite amazing considering the subject..:) Procrastinating@talk2me 21:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you see, you only get six if you don't count the top and the bottom.  The top and the bottom are opposites.  These opposites create the four corners.  3D space is evil.  Three is the number of the Trinity.  The Trinity is three queers.  You need the mother.  You need a forth dimension. The fourth dimension being time ... but Einstein is an educated stupid too.  Cubic time.  4D space time.  God is a singularity.  You need opposite opposites.  That gives you four.  Four fours are sixteen.  But that minus four minus fours is sixteen is evil.  Sixteen faces to the hypercube.  Each face has four corners.  Each face has an opposite face.  The cube is created of opposites not evil entity.  Opposites canel to zero.  Four opposites to the hypercube.  The square root of sixteen is four.  Therefore a cube has four faces.  If you deny this you're an educated stupid bastard. Jimp 17:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  salute! 

message: I propose to get someone to merge Gene Ray into this article and replace Gene Ray with a redirect to this article.  Reason: Gene Ray is notable only for his determined efforts to promote his bizarre theory in various venues, including the Wikipedia. 
At present, figures and information about Time Cube overlapping with this article are in Gene Ray.  If you disagree with the merger, an alternative would be to clean up both articles so they are not overlapping.
One reason for merging, however, is that it would be easier to protect fewer articles against bad edits by time cubiacs.---CH 03:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good suggestion, and I think it was previously implemented, and then someone undid it. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be done again, though! - Nunh-huh 03:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Personally I would prefer the clean up. Move/rewrite everything that has to do with the time cube theory here and all personal information about Gene Ray on the page about him.83.91.171.184 12:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge

message: Thanks to User:Corky842 for catching some apparent rayspam which I missed, thanks. ---CH 23:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rayspam

message: It would add to the article imo if someone could add examples of jokes that lasted a long time.70.66.9.162 17:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples of long-running jokes