Talk:Time Cube/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions about Time Cube. 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 10

←

Archive 13

Timecube Fantasy

I am fascinated by the idea of cubism, but the mere fact that every living person is not in the same exact "time" proves the 360 degree version we know and accept. It is well verifiable that a person standing no farther than 5 feet from you will be in a different time location. This alone is also proof that time is relative (einstein) to the observer. There are many different observers, and many different "times" But the word so cherished by the good doctor is also the "word" that disproves his theory. Simultaneous 4 quadrant time is non-existent because of the mere word "simultaneous" A person who is in the midnight quadrant started his/her measurement of time at Sun-up just like each person on the globe. Conspiracy? Not likely, it merely proves that he had a significant and relative opinion during his lifetime that effected everyone. According to einstein's theory of relativity everyone who wakes up in the morning, wakes up in his particular morning, again relative to the observer. The time-cube theory has merit partly to distinguish the non-linear shape of space, and it is very possible that the shape of space could be geometric. There are still many unknowns, dark matter, the fleeting appearance of time. We see space as linear and occupied by gas and matter, in a vaccuum, which in itself is hardly acceptable. I believe the accepted definition of a vacuum is that of an entity which occupies space wherein the relative differential pressure between gases equals close to zero. Since there is no perfect vacuum, matter can exist. There is no opposite, the fact that we can exist represents the lack of opposites. We percieve opposites from our own perceptions, in the big picture, opposites are relative only to the action that is created by the opposite. When Carbon combines with oxygen, there is no opposite observed or percieved as of yet. I believe that the timecube theory is astounding at pointing out the mystery of our "known" science. As far as a provable theory on time, it is nothing more than exercise for the brain. Hopefully one day by reading the doctor's work in context with all the other work that has been and will be done, someone truly will solve the mystery that is us.

The belief in separated time will lead us nowhere in science, you might as well say they are looking at four different suns as well. 70.92.3.239 05:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi User:70.92.3.239, I disagree with your denunciation of "separated time". If you eliminated the separation between midday and midnight, then you would compress the earth into a flat disc that would lack structural stability and would disintegrate. I guess that your agenda is the elimination of all spatial separation of the universe, and the cancellation of all antipodal opposites into a singularity. See website http://www.timecube.com for denunciation of evil Cubeless singularity.

The word "simultaneous" does not disprove the four days. In fact, it is an accurate description of the four days. Your complaint that various people had "significant and relative opinion during his lifetime that effected everyone" does not in any way disprove the 4-days. I suggest you either find a LEGITIMATE disproof of the 4-days, or accept that they are true.

The opposite of the carbon bonding with oxygen is the CO2 molecule being split apart by the leaf-photosynthesis of a plant, or other similar method. You see, if it is possible to chemically combine the separate element-atoms, then it is possible also to split them apart. See CubicAO article Energy and Matter for further information on these matters, including an explanation of electrolysis, electrolysis being another process by which a compound molecule can be divided into its constituent atoms.

But in fact, Time Cube is rationally proven true. Did you see the CubicAO Time Cube Proof, wherein, specifically, CASE 33 proves that there are 4 simultaneous days within a single rotation of Earth. YOU--must seek Time Cube. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Time Cube Guy (talk • contribs)

Saying an argument is rational doesn't make it so. Even a rational argument isn't automatically correct. For instance, I could say "I have been proven rationally to be a doctor". That statement is both false and irrational, and doesn't mean I can prescribe the medication you obviously need. Prgrmr@wrk 16:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ohh boy... Time Cube Guy, I suggest you either find a LEGITIMATE disproof of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or accept that it exists. Oh, hang on, that's a silly comparison -- more than two people in the entire world believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster... Dave-ros 22:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you just put Time Cube on the same scale as a random religion of your choice? I think they got you, man. Maurog 07:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Prgrmr@wrk, if you actually analyse the CubicAO Time Cube Proof to which I linked, you will see that it is 100% rationally valid and correct: therefore, it is indeed a rational proof. Moreover, its premises are all indisputable, meaning that all of its conclusions are likewise true. We are thus led to the conclusion that Time Cube is irrefutably proven to be the absolute truth of this 4-corner universe.

Timecube is wrong on two counts. The first is that it asserts that there are special points in spacetime ("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 minor Time points we recognize as Sunup and Sundown."), which there are not. Points in spactime are only special based on the events that go on there (hence the reason there is no center or edge of the universe). Another flaw is that it seems to imply that time is absolute, which it isn't. Two events that seem simultaneous to one observer may can happen at totally and completely different times according to another observer, and both are equally right. Popisfizzy 21:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I just realized a contradiction between the ideas of Gene Ray and your so-called proof. Right on the image that you first see on the page, it says "Singularity is a damnable lie" (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8b/Timegrab.png), yet Case 1 of your proof requires singularities to be true and exist ("A singularity, or single point, is a zero point.", http://www.cubicao.tk/proof.html). Before spouting your proofs, you should make sure that the ideas don't contradict eachother. Popisfizzy 20:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it refers to a null, as in the boolean FALSE flag. You can't argue that they exist, and they are needed (without the FALSE, there is no TRUE), and yet you can hardly call them true. A bunch of damnable lies, all of them, if you define a lie as the opposite of true. There should be a center of the universe as well if you support the Big Bang theory, but you probably need to be outside the universe to be able to measure the exact point it expands from. And time *is* absolute. It passes at constant rate at all points in space, and any inconsistencies you may find are flaws in observation. Maurog 06:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No, time isn't absolute. Time will pass at different rates depending on a few things. First off, if you're in an area of higher gravity, time will pass slower for you. As well, the faster you travel relative to the speed of light, the slower time will pass (this is indirectly related to the higher gravity I pointed out previously). It's called time dialation, and is a required facet of Einstein's theory of relativity. It has been shown to occur in multiple experiments, three of which I know.

First, an unstable elementary particle (muon, I think, though don't quote me on this) is accellerated to near the speed of light, and its lifespan is tested against a muon not in motion. Relative to the individuals conducting the experiment, the muon not in motion decays first.

A second experiment was done where two extremely sensitive clocks were set equal to eachother, and then one was placed on a plane travelling around the world at high altitudes. When the plane landed, the clocks were compared, and more time passed for the clock on the ground than the clock on the plane.

The third experiment took two extremely accurate clocks, and placed one on the base of a water tower, I think (once again, don't quote me on the water power part), and one at the top. They were measured later, and the time for the one at the base passed slower than the one at the top.

What TimeCubeGuy is referring to is relative simultaneity. Once again, it makes the false assumptiontion that time is absolute. Consider the following: Imagine two supernovas, a and b, and three observers, x, y, and z. X is closer to a than b, y is inbetween the two, and z is closer to y than x. According to x, a went supernova before b. According to y, they both went supernova at the same time. According to z, b went supernova before a. Since photons are how information is transferred, none of them is more correct and incorrect than the other.

Also, there is no center of the universe. Quote the article on it, "center of the universe is a misconception of the big bang. In the big bang, there is no center, and thus the universe has no center, even though common sense insists that an explosion should have a center to explode from." When things refer to relativity, you have to ignore common sense, because common sense isn't alway right. Popisfizzy 15:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, but you lost me at "area of higher gravity". As far as my feeble memory serves, gravity only applies to anything with mass, and not to areas of space by any means. Also, just because time can pass differently for individual objects under certain circumstances doesn't mean it isn't absolute. Consider this: you can move up or down an escalator, effectively arriving before or after people that you started on the same step with. Would you decidively conclude the escalator isn't moving at absolute constant speed? Maurog 07:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I implore you to read the article on general relativity. It will help you get some background on all this.

Gravity, as most people know it, wasn't entirely explained by Newton. He knew what it was, but he didn't know how it worked. That gap was filled in by Albert Einstein, who postulated that gravity is caused by the curvature of spacetime, when matter with mass interferes with it. This has recently been confirmed by an experiment by NASA. Notice how I said spacetime, and not just space. Time is actually the fourth dimension, and time and space are interlinked, hence the spacetime continuum. An object in an area of higher gravity will experience it's clock running slower. Every observer, though, measures their own clock running normally, and every observer sees every other observer's clock running slower.

This curvature of spacetime also applies to objects travelling at high velocites. I'm sure you've heard of e = mc^2. This energy is the mass-energy equation. It shows that a miniscule amount of matter equates to a high amount of energy, and vice-versa. One consequence of this equation I'm sure you've heard of a nuclear weapons. As an object's energy contents increases it's mass also increases, though this isn't noticeable in our everyday encounters. But, when you near the speed of light, it becomes noticeable. As your speed increases, you gain kinetic energy, which equates to an increase in mass. Therefore, spacetime curves, and you experience a slower clock, though, as before, to yourself your clock is still running at the same speed. You also measure length differently as this velocity, which is known as Lorentz contraction. Here is a video by a professor at, if I remember correctly, Berekly, discussing time dialation and length contraction (another name for Lorentz contraction).

As well, I'm using the term "relative" meaning that it's not constant for every observer. Time nor space is absolute and constant. Instead, the speed of light is constant for all observers, which is unique to all other phenomena.

Popisfizzy 19:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It's very hard to argue with that logic. You just took Einstein theory of relativity which is based on speed of light being constant and concluded just that. However, let's inverse the speed of light formula and define "the universal tic" as the amount of time it takes for light to travel one meter in vacuum. It seems that normally we travel through time at a constant timespeed of one subjective second every 300 megatics or so. If you start moving very very fast in space, you will move slower through time, meaning it will take more megatics for you to move one subjective second in time. Is that a plausible enough absolute time definition? Maurog 09:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I really don't get what you're trying to say here. Is it something along the lines that all observers will observer the same amount of time, even if it goes faster or slower at some point in time? That isn't the case. Time does travel slower the higher the gravitational feild you're in or the faster your go. Your clock will run at a different speed, and you'll experience a different amount of time. As I said, this has all been verifed empirically. The speed of light has been shown to be the same for all observers as well. If the speed of light is the same for all observers, then it has to be length and and time that are changing. There's no denying that it happens, unless you want to battle a large amount of information.

Time isn't absolute. It's hard to wrap your head around, but it does occur, and has been shown to occur. It has essentially no effect on the everday human experience, though, because we don't live in a high enough gravitational feild, nor do we normally travel fast enough to experience it. Even if you travel around the world in a plane for 100 years (so you're in a lower gravitational field), the amount of time change would only be a few millionths (or maybe billionths; I don't remember exactly) of a second. As the experiment I mentioned involving muons shows, though, it definitely becomes noticeable when you're travelling at the speed of light.

Popisfizzy 20:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Popisfizzy, yes the Earth's opposite corners (sunrise, midday, sunset, midnight) ARE special, in that they are separate and distinct. In saying that they are not special, you are actually saying that they are indistinguishable from one another, therefore that they are one and the same and that they have collapsed into a self-destructive annihilative singularity. You are saying that Earth doesn't exist.

And I find that Maurog is correct. The computer-programming concept of a "null" or "void" is precisely suited to describing the "singularity". Popisfizzy, if you had quoted the second sentence from Case 1 of the Cubic Proof, you would have seen that that sentence read: "It [the singularity] represents nonexistence." We see that the singularity or "zero point" actually doesn't exist, and that antipodal Cubic opposites are required for existence.

Maurog is also correct in saying that time IS absolute. Popisfizzy, the distortions to which you refer are merely variations on the absolute reference-frame, specifically relativistic variations in linear space and linear time. See article Time is Cubic, not linear. An analogy is that an object will form upon your eyes' retinas images of different sizes depending on your distance therefrom--but whereas I would correctly say that the object retains its absolute, unchanging length, you would incorrectly say that its length varies depending on the observer's vantage point.

I will further substantiate the idea of an absolute reference frame by announcing that halfway between lightspeed left and lightspeed right, there is an absolute zero velocity. Any object that possesses that absolute zero velocity is truly at rest, regardless of illusory distortions caused by reference frame perceptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Time Cube Guy (talk • contribs)

First off, that article says that the speed of light is the maximum speed. That's wrong. Though matter with mass can't travel at or faster than the speed of light, light itself can be accellerated beyond the speed of light. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Speed_of_light#.22Faster-than-light.22_observations_and_experiments

Saying that a theory that has such far reaching consequences as relativity is wrong, and the backing up your theory by saying an aspect is wrong, but not demonstrating how, is no way to further your theory. Relativity is pretty much here to stay, unless you can provide evidence that your theory is right and his isn't. Timecube isn't a tautology, so the burden of evidence is on you. Right now you're a 12 pound child trying to beat down a 300 pound sumo wrestler.

Also, you aren't demonstrating relativity correctly. If I look at a ruler from ten inches away and then look at it from ten feet away, it's still twelve inches across. But, as you travel near the speed of light, its length changes. This is length contraction, or Lorentz contraction, whichever you prefer, which is another essential aspect of relativity.

Finally, that "evidence" of absolute frame of reference is incorrect. It's remaining in zero motion only relative to the particles moving at the speed of light, and that requires you measure only these two particles relative to these particles, and not the rest of the universe. The left-moving particle observes the particle moving away extremely fast (I'm not sure that it would see it moving away at the speed of light or not. When particles are moving at exactly the speed of light, things are a bit different). The left moving particle would also see the right-moving particle moving away at the speed of light. Vice-versa for the right-moving particle. The middle object observes both the left-moving particle and right-moving particle moving away at the speed of light. Relative to other objects in the universe, though, the object is still moving.

I'm not saying they don't exist. I'm just saying that you say the time there is special, even though there's not any event at these "corners" that make it special in any sort of way. They only become special when something happens there that makes that point in spacetime special.

As I said previously, Timecube isn't a self-evident truth, so the burden of evidence is on the timecubists to show their theory is right. Thus far, I don't see any sort of proof of this. Popisfizzy 15:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Dave-ros, the Flying Spaghetti Monster that you mentioned actually contravenes Occam's Razor. There is no proof in support of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and it is an entirely redundant, unnecessary and superfluous concept, therefore it should not be considered to be true. There are probably grounds on which it can be disproven, also, such as the physical impossibility of large quantities of spaghetti without a designated propulsion system maintaining the force of "lift" by which to fly steadily through the air. In summary, it is reasonable to conclude that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is nonexistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Time Cube Guy (talk • contribs)

Time Cube Guy, Time Cube contravenes Occam's Razor. There is no proof in support of the Time Cube "theory" (other than a lot of ranting from Gene Ray and spurious discussion from yourself), and it is an entirely redundant, unnecessary and superfluous concept, therefore it should not be considered to be science. There are probably grounds on which it can be disproven, such as the fact that Gene Ray is clearly deranged (just look at his layouts and fonts). In summary, it is reasonable to conclude that Time Cube is a load of cobblers.

"One-corner maths" works, therefore there is no need for "four-corner maths", other than some insane idea of morality. We use one-corner maths, but the poles don't suddenly meet and turn the Earth into a disc! The Universe isn't four-cornered, it's infinite-cornered. And for the love of God (who you don't believe exists), sign your posts!

Oh boy, I think I'm gonna take this page off my Watchlist... I'm just glad Something Awful brought back the "Learning Triangle" page ;-) Dave-ros 19:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"There are probably grounds on which it can be disproven, such as the fact that Gene Ray is clearly deranged (just look at his layouts and fonts). " That was pretty much an ad-homien attack. Tranqulizer 08:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ad hominem attack, you meant to write. Fair enough, but so is saying that all teachers who deny Time Cube (i.e. don't teach it) are stupid and evil, and are murdering children with their Word Masturbations, or whatever unfounded claims he's written this week! Dave-ros 14:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

But, it is invisible. Most invisible things are capable of flight. In fact, claiming that an invisible thing you never encountered is *incapable* of flight would be a direct violation of Occam's Razor, which deals with probablities. Since there are way more invisible things that fly (or travel through the air unhindered) than those which don't, it makes perfect sense for the FSM to fly. Maurog 06:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup, Wonder Woman's Jet is flying and invisible. Invisible things can fly. Invisible spaghetti monsters may be able to fly. I'm staying out of the singularity thing.Markjohndaley 16:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Dave-ros, see the CubicAO Time Cube Proof. Indeed Time Cube is rationally proven, as is on that linked page made clear. Furthermore, it is exclusive, and no other theory can claim equal status to it. Thus, there is no grounds on which Occam's Razor could possibly reject Time Cube.

And indeed, "Tranqulizer" astutely observed that Dave-ros had made an "ad hominem" attack. In that he ignored the message but criticised the messenger's style as a means to illegitimately discredit the message, it was an "ad hominem" logical fallacy. (Such "ad hominem" logical fallacies have been used many times against Time Cube, frequently here on Wikipedia; people have anti-Cubic prejudices, and logical fallacies are the means by which they express their prejudices.)

You say that one-corner maths works. In fact, it DOESN'T work for representing the theory of everything and the full complete universal truth; only Time Cube works for that purpose. I guess when you say one-corner maths works, you mean that it successfully serves the purpose of destroying nature, inflicting Cubeless cannibalism and nuclear holocaust, and raping and eating young babies.

Maurog, no I doubt your logic. How is it that the quality of "invisibility" entails the quality of "flight"? I find that it does not entail that quality. Indeed, since spaghetti is visible, it would be impossible for it to be invisible; thus, an invisible "flying spaghetti monster" would be impossible.

Anyway, I suggest that everyone click their way to TimeCube.com to examine Dr Ray's latest updates and the genius scriptures contained therein. We should all accept Time Cube. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Time Cube Guy (talk • contribs)

In all my experience with invisible objects, gravity has no noticeable affect (seeing as how they're all at the quantum level, where gravity doesn't have any noticeable affect). Do you have evidence against this?

Also: -1 * -1 = 1 --> -1 * -1 = -(-1) - (-1) = 1 * 1 = 1

This can be expanded elsewhere: -2 * -3 = -(-2) - (-2) - (-2) = 2 + 2 + 2 = 6

If Gene Ray doesn't get this simple concept, he should probably got back to the sixth grade. Popisfizzy 15:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is starting to get a bit long and off-topic. Talk pages are only for discussion of the article they're associated with, not the topic of the article in general, is any of this actually related to changes that anyone's planning to make to the article itself? If not it would be best to take it to some external forum. Bryan Derksen 14:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but as far as I can tell this discussion is continuing to ramble on completely off the topic of improving the article. This is not the place to be speculating on the intricacies of Time Cube "theory" itself. Please discontinue it or take it to an off-Wikipedia forum, this talk page is cluttered enough as it is. Bryan Derksen 01:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding scientific status of Time Cube

I see that time cube guy has problems with time cube being discribed as non-scientific. Would you please explain why? if it was true that time cube is based on a scientific methodology, then gene ray would be inconsistent since he states that scientists are stupid and evil. I am pretty sure gene ray him self would oppose his theory being labeled as anything resembling science. Tranqulizer 12:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently a recent update on timecube.com has assured that Gene Ray wants his theory to be regarded as scientific. So I suppose I have to retract it. Never the less I thought that it was a decent compromise to weather time cube is a theory or not. I suppose we will just have to live with the constant revert war over it. I honestly have no idea why Gene ray or "cubics" would have anything against being labled as non scientific since they hate the academics so much who have defined science in the first place, for apparently viewing the world in a fundametally flawed way. Tranqulizer 15:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

"Tranqulizer", we must distinguish between ACADEMIAN CORRUPT 1-CORNER CUBELESS SCIENCE, and true objective rational unclouded unbiased science. The latter is to be found in Time Cube, whereas the former reduces the latter to a life-destroying baby-cannibalising homosapiens-extinguishing evil. True science is 4-CORNER TIME CUBE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimeCubeGuy (talk • contribs)

Honestly I dont really care about this article or its subject anymore so you win. Ofcource if Ray had bothered to look at the history of this article he would know that I am one of the few who has supported the inclution of this article on WP becuase I do think his ideas are original. But I wont bother anymore since I feel the exstremists on both sides (you, and the people who wants this article completely deleted) are making it imposible to write a decent encyclopedic article on the subject. Moving on...Tranqulizer 20:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitism and homophobia

Shouldn't we have some mention of the gross antisemitism and homophobia which pervades his screed? 75.35.79.57 07:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No, because Dr Ray was never antisemitic, and merely to complain about the morbid perverted homosexual practices of wanton HIV propagation and unnatural queer corrupt male anal copulation does not warrant the use of the politically-correct scare-campaign-tactic buzzword platitude "homophobia". —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimeCubeGuy (talk • contribs)

Schizophrenia

"Some of Ray's theories, including his frequent reference to evil and religion, suggest that he may suffer from a schizoid disorder such as paranoid schizophrenia." Sheesh, why does everyone have to be so mean to the smartest man in the universe? In all seriousness though, this needs to have a citation to be included. If someone can find a reliable source suggesting that, feel free to add the sentence back in along with the source. ShadowHalo 01:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly ShadowHalo, I agree. Dr Ray is indeed the smartest man in the world, and as far as I'm concerned these accusations of mental illness are but a slander against him, and an "ad hominem" attack intended to illegitimately misrepresent the Time Cube as being false when in truth the Time Cube is rationally proven to be 100% veracious and accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimeCubeGuy (talk • contribs)

It says on timecube.com, "My wisdom so antiquates known knowledge, that a psychiatrist examining my behavior, eccentric by his academic single corner knowledge, knows no course other than to judge me schizoprenic" near the bottom of the first page... does that count? -134.197.106.177 05:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

As what? A reliable source? Hardly. First of all, that would imply this and all other statements on the Time Cube page are true, and I'm sure some people would disagree. Secondly, the statement talks about some hypothetical psychiatrist, a reliable source would have an actual name and proof of diagnosis. • Maurog • 13:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. That's true. I guess my thinking is that at the very least he admits to having been diagnosed with schizophrenia. But then again, the statement could also simply be in reply to the general accusation, which has been made by a number of people (none of whom we can verify are qualified to make such a diagnosis). Oh well.134.197.106.177 17:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)