Talk:Time Cube: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:23, 17 February 2005 edit65.95.167.120 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:39, 26 October 2024 edit undoPARAKANYAA (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers43,997 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Skip to talk}}
	20/9/2004: Please don't delete too much of it... i have never laughed so heartily at a wikipedia article :P
			{{Talk header}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|maxarchivesize = 100K
			\|counter = 17
			\|algo = old(31d)
			\|archive = Talk:Time Cube/Archive %(counter)d
			}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell \|class=C \|living=no \|1=
			{{WikiProject Websites \|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Internet culture \|importance=low}}
			{{WikiProject Skepticism \|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Alternative Views \|importance=Low}}
			}}
			{{Article history\|action1=afd
			\|action1date=2004-01-24
			\|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Time Cube
			\|action1result=keep

			\|action2=afd
	----------
			\|action2date=2004-02-03
			\|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Time Cube (2nd nomination)
			\|action2result=keep

			\|action3=FAC
	See ] for a past discussion on whether this article should have been deleted.
			\|action3date=2005-03-30
			\|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Time Cube/archive1
			\|action3result=not promoted
			\|action3oldid=11699082

			\|action4=afd
	----
			\|action4date=2005-04-26
			\|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Time Cube (3rd nomination)
			\|action4result=keep

			\|action5=afd
	All the anti-Cubic arguments in the "Time Cube" article are actually wrong and can be easily refuted. However, rather than correct the article myself, I will simply invite any free thinkers who are interested in learning the Truth to debate Time Cube on the <strike>Time Cube forum</strike>. No closed-minded Academian pedants, please.
			\|action5date=2006-10-26
			\|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Time Cube (4th nomination)
			\|action5result=keep

			\|action6=AFD
	UPDATE: The forum is out of commission. However I may discuss Time Cube on user talk pages, like I did with Andrewa.
			\|action6date=15:19, 29 October 2008
			\|action6link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Time Cube (5th nomination)
			\|action6result=keep

			\|action7=AFD
	UPDATE: I'm now editing the article.
			\|action7date=17:35, 16 March 2010
			\|action7link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Time Cube (6th nomination)
			\|action7result=keep

			\|action8=AFD
	----
			\|action8date=18:48, 29 July 2010
			\|action8link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Time Cube (7th nomination)
			\|action8result=keep
			\|action8oldid=376078972

			\|currentstatus=FFAC
	Archived debate: ]
			}}
			{{controversial}}
			{{mergedfrom\|Gene Ray}}
			{{Not a forum}}

			== doctor's degree ==
	Editing dispute: ]

			Does he really have a PhD? Couldn't find anything about it, just that he started to call himself Dr. in 2002. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)</small>
	== 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! --]] 19:57, 2004 Jun 20 (UTC)

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

			This section does not include any mention of Janczarski commiting suicide. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	: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.
			:True. The reason is given as an edit summary. --] (]) 20:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
			::I've removed "Suicide of" from the heading as it's no longer applicable to the content. ] ] 20:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

			== Help a Newbie Out ==
	: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 made a few contributions to the page, mostly based on the past edit of Richard Janczarski's death being removed, but in return was mostly removed by a user named ](I don't know how to link to names, hopefully what I did works). Hopefully he can help me out? I am new to wikipedia editing of course, and I understand why some of my edit's were removed, but I have a few questions. I hope I am typing this in the right place to even communicate this.
	:: 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. --]] 16:22, 2004 Jul 4 (UTC)

			1. Why doesn't Fredrik Knudsen's documentary Down The Rabbit Hole on this topic not constitute as a source? In my view this would constitute as the greatest source outside of what is on the Cubic Awareness Online website/TimeCube website or their owners direct statements. If the documentary does constitute as a source, I'd like to know how to revise the edits I made to better suit this wikipage to better improve the accuracy of this article instead of just throwing everything from it out the window.
	:::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).

			2. Richard Janczarski killed himself. This fact isn't really in dispute. I'd like to know why attempts to bring light of this significant event in TimeCubes history keep getting removed. So far it has just been "insignificant" source claims with both the Down The Rabbit Hole documentary and his gravestone. I understand just some random gravestone that ''could'' be his being removed, but this is definitely and not in dispute his gravestone.
	:::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).

			A lot of TimeCube's history has gone unarchived, leading to these conflicts of not having any direct sources, but I am confused as why events that did take place and did happen to a definite degree are unable to be attributed to the TimeCube wikipage just because the evidence for them happening isn't retrievable, yet comments made in a school newspaper are somehow used as a proper source.
	:::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.

			TL;DR Am a newbie, but want to better flesh out this article. Can someone help me out?
	::::The validity of what you are trying to get across is not mirrored in the comprehencability 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. ] 07:03, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
			UPDATED: Found reasons why that stuff was removed in earlier post, can it further be explained to me so I can fully understand and work around those imposed limitations? I just don't understand why it's so hard to express the fact that he died by suicide, which is important in relation to the article. Also, how can the Down The Rabbit Hole source be changed to better suit the claims made here? It feels like a complete waste just tossing it out because it says more than what it's being sourced for.
			<!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			:{{u\|ThyShyFly}}, content requires reliable, independent sources for verifiability (learn more at ]). ] are not considered reliable (with limited exceptions, which Knudsen's video doesn't meet). This is an article about a specific website, so Janczarski's death isn't relevant unless there is a reliable source noting it ''and'' connecting it to TimeCube in some way. ] ] 22:08, 14 January 2021 (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' 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. ] 21:43, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

			== Richard Janczarski ==
	==Funny==

			A recent edit by ] has removed Richard Janczarski in his entirety from the article. He states, "None of this is sourced anyway. If we're not going to write about him committing suicide because there is no source for it, why mention him at all? There is no source for him."
	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 <font style="line-height:normal" size=+6 color=green>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.</font> And ain't it the truth. -- ] 07:50, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

			Going back into the history, the whole Richard Janczarski part had two sources, one linking to one of his youtube videos and the other to a radio interview. Neither really supported anything they were sourced to.

			Despite the lack of evidence, I personally think the removal of the Richard Janczarski section is disappointing, as he was a huge part of the TimeCube saga, I'd even go as far to say that he was more important than Dr. Jene Ray himself just due to Richard's website, , really making it clear (at least as clear as TimeCube can be) what TimeCube is about. Currently, other wiki related websites are leagues above this article on wikipedia just due to them having more information with regards to TimeCube.
	==Help==

			Here are some important links related to Richard Janczarski.
	Hi. I was wondering if some of you could help in dealing with a similar issue to this one. As I'm kind of new here, I don't exactly know the best way to deal with this. Someone named ] has been maintaining a rather nonsense and POV article called ]. Although the subject matter is something that is actually quite worthy of attention, the article itself is absolutely unsatisfactory. I wrote a ] on the subject, and I think the best thing to do is to redirect to it.

			https://yadi.sk/d/t8cdVYIpjMEPn in this radio interview, Richard Janczarski admits he got kicked out of university but got re-enrolled because of TimeCube. The interviewer also uses the term "Cubicist" to describe people who believed in TimeCube. Also gives the background behind his "Second Wisist Human" title.
	Thanks,
			http://web.archive.org/web/20200220173816/http://cubicao.tk/CubicAwarenessOnline This is an archive of the CubicAwarenessOnline website, describes TimeCube in its entirety, and was the website around the GraveyardoftheGods community.
			https://www.youtube.com/user/Pyramid0rz Richard Janczarski's official youtube account, has lots of TimeCube videos with two seperate movie projects on it.

			Lots more links, these are just some I had handy. I just think Richard Janczarski's entire removal from the wikipage would be a disappointment. Want to see what other editors think though. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	] 23:30, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

			:Misplaced Pages is based on independent, reliable, published sources. Cubic Awareness is Janczarski's personal website which is neither independent nor reliable. Same goes for his Youtube channel. The radio interview is the only source that's not self-published, however it is publishing Janczarski's words verbatim with no fact-checking or analysis. Since coverage in ] is nonexistent, this section fails the ] requirement, –] ] 13:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
	----
			:Seconded. All of that may be of interest to true heads on this topic but, and I say this as someone with my username, Misplaced Pages is not a fan wiki. Just because information is of interest to a reader deep into a particular topic doesn't mean it needs to be added here, especially with the sort of references cited to include it. ] (]) 07:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

			:Huh, Misplaced Pages didn't notify me of the mention like it usually does. Strange. Anyway, ], I fully get where you're coming from. The two issues are that there was a severe lack of proper sourcing for the content we provided, and that we were pretty much forced to leave out the most important parts anyway due to, again, lack of sourcing. It would be perfect if reliable sources described his involvement with Ray and his suicide, but without that, what would be the point in mentioning his name? His description in existing sources is not notable and I agree that it would fail ]. Maybe some news site will look back the events somewhere in the future. Let's hope. ] (]) 11:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
	Anon,
			::{{ping\|Prinsgezinde}} Understandable, but I would think it’s at least worth mentioning that Time Cube had another adherent (that is, apart from Gene Ray). Apparently Janczarski’s YouTube contributions are considered notable enough for IMDB (https://www.imdb.com/name/nm10919055/). ] (]) 10:19, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
			:::This is one of many reasons why IMdB does not meet WP's reliable source criteria. ] ]/] 15:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
			::::There are aspects of IMDB which are pretty reliable, especially cast lists. But being in IMDB does not necessarily qualify a given work as being notable under wikipedia rules. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 22:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

			== Agreement ==
	Here are the reasons I've made the changes to the article that I have:
			It appears that there is one statement by this Ray guy that everyone can agree on: "Ray asserted repeatedly and variously that the academic world had not taken Time Cube seriously." ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 22:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

	*I disagree with your changes to the first paragraph. Adding the phrase "Critics of the theory claim" is inaccurate. It is a fact that no one has been able to make a clear statement of what Mr. Ray's ideas have to do with time. If you can do this, do so, and I'll support changing the sentence. Also, it currently is a fact that Mr. Ray's theory makes no testable hypotheses or predictions. Again, if you can supply some, do so, and I'll agree to changing the sentence.

	::Dr Ray says that "Time is Cubic, not Linear". My interpretation of this is that by "Cubic", he means 3D. So Time Cube dictates that Time has 3-dimensions, which contradicts 1-dimensional linear-time models.
	:::It is equally unclear (to me at least) what it would mean for time to have 3-dimensions. It is also unclear whether or not such a thing is what Ray means by the statement "Time is Cubic, not Linear" although that may be your interpretation. ] 06:40, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

	::::I think it is clear; "linear" is a line, which is 1D, and "cubic" is a cube, which is 3D. I have studied Time Cube a fair bit, and am quite confident that Cubic Time is 3D.

	::Time Cube dictates that everything is cyclical, any given entity is either composed of opposites or has an opposite, everything is finite and the forms of higher living beings are related to 4 (eg. higher animals have 4 limbs which tend to have 4 fingers/toes each, golden rectangle can be approximated by a rectangle composed entirely of 4-corner squares with increasing sizes, etc.) I think that it is scientifically falsifiable—if something were observed that didn't conform to it, then that would disprove it.
	:::How about a non-rotating sphere? How about a circle? How about a deer antler? How about the word "among"? Presumably yourself or Mr. Ray could come up with some obscure way in which these things could be related to the number four. But someone else could come up with another no less obscure way in which they were related to the number three or two or six hundred and two. The fact that, for any two things, there is always some means of finding a relationship between them is what makes the theory unfalsifiable as it amounts to doing exactly that between everything and the number four. ] 06:40, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

	::::I would have to do more study into antlers to determine the principles governing their form. Do you know of any existing research in this regard? The equator is a circle formed by rotation; it may be harmonically divided into 4 quadrants and bounded by a 4-corner square. Non-rotating spheres would not often naturally occur; AFAIK, the vast majority of planets do rotate and are dilated. Manmade spheres and words are but fictitious ephemeral phenomena, which may be disregarded on the basis of their triviality.

	::::If you have an alternative theory relating to "number three or two or six hundred and two" I would like to hear it, in the interest of free thought and rationality.

	*"More specifically, these continua tend to be cycles, which the 4 classes divide into quarters or quadrants." The meaning of this sentence is unclear. I'm reverting the paragraph for now.

	::Consider one period of a cycle; you can divide that into 4 equal quarters (eg. sunup-midday, midday-sundown, sundown-midnight, midnight-sunup). If the cycle involves going around in a circle, then you can accomplish the 4-quarter division by dividing the circle into 4 quadrants.
	:::You could also divide them into five quadrants, seven quadrants, or a billion sections. The very fact that they are continuous means that you can divide them into however many sections you want. Also, I don't know what you mean when you say that the continua tend to be in cycles. ] 06:40, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

	::::See the for the harmonicity of 4, which invalidates the other divisions. Once you divide it into the harmonic 4-quadrants, that's all there is; further divisions must occur within the existing quadrants. If you walk around in a circle, that's a cyclical continuum. The continuum is a cycle.

	*"(family time ages of metamorphic human)" The meaning of this is unclear. I'm removing it.

	::That is terminology Dr Ray uses to refer to the baby-child-parent-grandparent life-cycle.
	:::Maybe so but the meaning is still unclear. ] 06:40, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
	::::Metamorphic => metamorphic progression through the life stages. Family => parents having babies. Ages => the age of the human. Human => vertical Word-ape. Time => Cubic.

	*"Midday, Sundown, Midnight and Sunup" These are times of the day. If you want to use these words to refer to corners of the earth, you need to establish the connection. I've made an effort to do this.

	::You're right, I made a mistake there. Consider a single point in time; sunup, midday, sundown, midnight can be used to define 4 corners in space. Then in 1 rotation, each of those corners rotates through the initial positions of the other 3 before returning to its own initial position. That's 4 Time corners for each of the 4 space corners, which sums to 16 total spacetime configurations. A graphical explanation of this is .

	*Made numerous changes to the 4-day section. Mostly to establish more clarity about the four corners of the earth but also to present some ambiguities.

	::At the poles, the corners cancel out, so near the poles, they are not well defined. However, you can extrapolate them from the more equatorial regions where they are well defined.

	*Assuming you are Mr. Ray, you ought to know whether you claim that the four seasons are occurring simultaneously at different points on the earth. Based on your edit, I'm guessing you don't. Therefore, I'm removing the paragraph.

	::No I'm not Gene Ray, and I was merely attempting to neutralise the POV present in what someone else wrote.
	:::In that case, let's leave the paragraph out for now until someone can bring in some evidence as to whether or not this is one of Ray's claims. ] 06:40, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
	::::OK.

	*"However, 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." It is unclear what this means. I'm removing it for now.

	::Well, for instance, although populations do not form a perfect bell-curve, the bell-curve is still a useful approximation. Likewise, although people's life-cycles aren't perfectly clockwork and are subject to much variation, the 4-corner division still functions as a useful approximation.
	:::If you can supply some evidence that Ray sees his four corner view of a person's life as only an approximation, we'll rework the paragraph. Until then, let's leave it as is. ] 06:40, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
	::::He stated that it's an approximation in the MIT Time Cube debate. A panel member asked him where great-grandparents fit into the life-cycle, and he said that there are variations from person to person (great-grandparent being one variation) but it averages out to four.

	*Added context to the quote in the "Words are evil" paragraph.

	*Supplied some pertinent additional information concerning the online petition.

	*Made copyedits for clarity and succinctness to "Problems with the Time Cube symbolism"

	*If the Earth were to stop rotating, although there would be many other immense changes would take place, the Earth's surface would not become spherical. This seems to invalidate paragraph #3, so I've removed the entire paragraph.

	::Due to gravity, non-rotating bodies tend to collapse into an approximate sphere. This may not be so much the case for a small rocky planet like Earth, but it certainly is for large gas planets and stars etc. Please explain the exact basis for your prediction above. Time Cube applies to all planets/stars/galaxies, not just Earth. I think the paragraph in question needs to be put back in the article.
	:::If the statement it is to apply to all planets, it would have to apply to Earth as well. ] 06:40, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

	::::It's an approximation. If earth stopped rotating, I'd expect some stress would occur on the crust, as gravity would be pushing it towards a spherical form. These forces might be counteracted in the case of the Earth, but not so for other planets. On average, non-rotating planets would tend to become a sphere. What is the exact basis for your initial prediction?

	*Removed the paragraph about algebraic cubes. I don't see how it's relevant.

	::It is somewhat relevant since people do sometimes bring up the issue. It's not essential though.


	–] 05:41, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

	I'll be happy to address these issues. However, it will have to wait until this weekend. –] 11:47, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


	I'm making a few changes as of now to correct some mistakes I made in assuming the Anon who made the 11:04, 4 Sep 2004 edit was Gene Ray. Also, I disagree with the use of this sentence "It therefore falls into the category of speculative belief with little relation to physics or science in general." Certainly there are some who would define the categories "speculative beliefs"and "beliefs with little relation to science in general" as not precisely overlapping with "beliefs that are not scientifically falsifiable." I'm reworking the sentence. –] 06:40, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

	This article is, in my opinion, (and please hear me out before you stop reading when I complete this sentence) one of the most important in the Misplaced Pages. It is an example of a running controversy that demonstrates how Wikipedians actually apply the policies of this project. One camp hates the mere presence of the article as something that pollutes Misplaced Pages, while another camp fervently believes that the information given is genuinely useful and true. So I've been following the edits to watch how ] is being applied: how much do editors assume that their opinion is the only one that should be presented; how often do editors use loaded terms (and was it intentional?); and how are disputes conducted on this Talk page? Because the page is not about some violent international conflict or suchlike, it's free of the worst forms of arrogance, and allows me to appreciate the dynamics of the edit history without worrying about who gets shot in the end. Still, however, it's interesting to note what goes on here.

	Cheers,
	] 01:05, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
	(May delight find you in the strangest places.)

	== it's poetry ==

	I don't where to put this in the actual article, but has anyone else noticed how poetic his entire site is? You could turn down the lights and read it off in a ] fashion, and it'd work perfectly.

	:''A 'Big Bang' for Academia.<br>A 1 day Earth = 1 leg horse.<br>A 4 day Earth = 4 leg horse.<br>4 quadrants resemble circle,<br>but doesn't constitute circle.<br>Earth more Cubic than orb.''

	==disputed==

	Ray also offers $10,000 to any academic institution or professor who disproves Time Cube, and $1,000 to anybody else who can disprove Time Cube.
	:I'm interested in what disproofs have been offered so far. A long time ago I wrote and emailed a paragraph easily disproving the main one or two pages, but got no reply. Since I don't feel like going onto the page again, I'll work within these articles. (Dammit, I'm the one claiming to disprove all religious and scientific ideas, and to be above God... I've even reinvented the calendar, as well as all other basic ideas and tools, using an essential number based on time and geometry, but ''not'' 4. But these hundreds of plans I save for websites, should I ever get them up, and after I put up a user page on Misplaced Pages outlining my anomalous history.)

	Gene Ray explains the 4/16 Rotation Principle, an important element of Time Cube, as follows: "''If Earth stood still, it would have mid-day, mid-night, sun-up and sun-down as 4 corners. Each rotation of earth has 4 mid-days, 4 mid-nights, 4 sun-ups and 4 sun-downs. The sixteen (16) space times demonstrates cube proof of 4 full days simultaneously on earth within one (1) rotation. The academia created 1 day greenwich time is bastardly queer and dooms future youth and nature to a hell.''"
	:His material is very easy to understand if you're not dumb, and easy to disprove if you're not mute. The problem here is that he stops on 4, rather than other special numbers like 2, 6, 8, or 12. He first points out the opposites of faces, divided here by a quality based on solar illumination. That makes two. But then he includes the two lesser halves, which are mixes of the two, and fails to consider that the proscribed mixing of races elsewhere in the explanation would be equivalent to them. At sunup and sundown, the Earth is at an intermediate illumination; these places are also subordinate to the faces determined by illumination. So his theory should realise that Indians and Asians shouldn't exist.

	:A corollary mistake is using an arbitrary, ad hoc model of a ''cycle'' for the divisions of races which developed on the ''surface'' beginning on ''one'' face, the region shared by the borders of all four hemispheres, with the cradle of humankind on one end and the cradle of civilisation on the other. The number of races then have more to do with a combination of the tiling of the plane, along with its kissing number, and the primary set of races truncated at their intermixing. So one arrives at three proper races, rather than six. However, because the racial divisions correlate with solar illumination, the three show the blending of the two Earth faces established above: light (European), dark (African), and blend (Asian). The "Indian race" he uses is not really a race; because we've already established three sheer, right races, the other groups can only be subraces or superraces, the latter being a superposition of all three qualities. The Indians would then be grouped in a superrace, the IndoEuroIberians, including Scythians, Kurgans, Kurds, Semites, and Mediterraneans. Diagrammatically, the three races form a triangle over the surface of the Earth, with the superrace at its centre. Because the superrace is not counted as a race, and the surface is disconnected with the rotational cycle, there are only three races.

	A typical Ray quotation is "''Time is CUBIC, not linear as stupid educators teach.''"

	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.

	:Not having a mathematical background, Ray equivocates cubic for cubical. He also equivocates motion for time: Time is independent of the Earth's spinning, or of any other cycle; he describes only a concept of periods crossed with structures as the basis for his theory. Because his four-corner model is completely arbitrary and ad hoc, suitable only for describing the differences between places on a round object ''only after'' freezing time, so that these places are established by pointing out where the sun is overhead ''for some such example'', it doesn't at all matter to other places/"corners" on the Earth where the four corners are in other rotated examples. The examples do not constitute days but shifted intervals in days, which don't touch the meaning of time itself.

	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.

	* The four corners/stages of a person's lifetime are baby, child, parent, and grandparent
	* The four corners of a person's head are the face, two ears, and back of the head
	* The four corners of Earth are the following: the places where days start at midnight, the places where days start at sunrise, the places where days start at noon, and the places where days start at sunset. Mr. Ray calls these corners Midnight, Sunup, Midday and Sundown, respectively. (more on this below)
	* The four corners of the day are midnight, 6 AM, noon, and 6 PM
	* The four corners of the year are the two equinoxes and two solstices

	:But the human life doesn't visibly loop into a circle; it's a line from start to end. Because of this, the number of classes should be odd: line (1) -> start, to<->middle, end (3) -> 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th (5) -> etc. Then the stages of a lifetime are youth, adult, and elder; or baby, youth, adult, elder, and crone.
	:A head isn't regular like a planet is; it's an outgrowth biased (anisotropic) forward. So the face isn't the same size as the back, which melds with the top. (Yes, there is a top.) Because the animal head started from a four-legged creature, the face would point slightly down. This being the first facet in terms of prominence, the second facet would be the top of the head. The back would not be a facet because there was no evolutionary pressure for that part to grow something there; therefore, the left and right back halves, including the ears, would be two more facets. So those form four facets, but unlike Ray's model, they are arranged as a distorted tetrahedron with facet pairs perpendicular rather than coequatorial as conformal belt.
	:And of cyclical divisions, in my reformulation of measures I don't use corners (Why should I? A ring is not a square.) so my division isn't four, but something much better.

	] has stated in the January 2002 MIT Time Cube Debate that the concept that -1 times -1 equals +1 is stupid and evil, because it is like saying that "A ] times a South American equals a ]." He jokingly added that -1 * -1 should actually equal "A South American".
	:Actually this is true! A South American times a South American ''does'' equal a North American. "South" to a southener is "north", as Australians consider Americans to be down under.

	As for what one should call the object, try timecarton. :P

	] 21:43, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	== Hmm, yeah ==

	Gene Ray is probably the most talented and disciplined performance artist I've ever seen. Even Misplaced Pages article writers don't even seem to get that this is one big practical joke. --] 11:17, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

	:If it is a joke, that would be news to me. I am quite convinced that Gene is for real; more importantly, even if he doesn't really believe in Time Cube, I know that I can support the Cubic principles using evidence and reasoning, and not mere citations of Dr Ray's scriptures that rely on the assumption of his authority. The article contains some of this supporting body of evidence/reasoning; you will notice, at least, that all anti-Cubic arguments contained therein are accompanied by a refutation. If you have good reasons to believe that Dr Ray is joking, please state them, or add them to the article.

	On a more serious level, I also used to believe that the Time Cube phenomenon was an arch riff on internet conspiracy theorists, but have since come around to the belief that Gene Ray genuinely is a bit odd, albeit in a harmless way which is hard to dislike. Whereas most internet cranks are genuinely unpleasant people, or obviously profiteers, Ray seems closer to the inspired madness of ] or ], the 'protein man' , than the face-on-mars/moon hoax people. I wish him well. -] 11:41, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

	== Mathematics? ==

	I am puzzled by the mathematical claims. He claims that <math>-1\times-1=1</math> is incorrect. Such a question cannot really be resolved without understanding what we mean by 1 and <math>-1</math>. Let me state my assumptions about this, and derive the result from those assumptions, and hopefully someone can point out which of the initial assumptions are flawed.

	To have any concept any concept of "multiplication" as well as "negative numbers" we should probably be considering a ] with ] (multiplicative identity). In that sense we define 1 as the unique element of the ring <math>R</math> such that

	::<math>1\times a = a\times 1 = a</math>, for all <math>a\in R</math>

	And then -1 is simply notation for the additive inverse of 1, that is the unique element of the ring such that

	::<math>(-1) + 1 = 1 + (-1) = 0</math>

	Given those definitions and the ring property that <math>a\times 0 = 0\times a = 0</math> for all <math>a\in R</math> we can write:

	::<math>0 = (-1)\times 0 = (-1)\times(1 + (-1)) = (-1)\times 1 + (-1)\times(-1) = (-1) + (-1)\times(-1)</math>

	thus <math>(-1)\times(-1)</math> is the inverse of (-1), which is 1 (by uniqueness of additive inverses).

	Now the uniqueness of identities and (additive) inverses, and the ring property stated are easily proved from ring (or group) axioms, and I can reproduce those with ease if required, but I don't think that would be necessary. The only really open assumptions I can see is the assumption that we have a ring and thus distributivity, and the very concepts of what we mean by the symbols 1 and -1 anyway.

	Any discussion would be appreciated. ] 07:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

	:See ; negative and positive are to be considered equal opposites, voiding the accepted Academic positive-bias and giving rise to the following equation:
	:-1 * -1 = +1 * +1 = -1 * +1 = ±1
	:Therefore:
	:1a = a1 = ±a
	:The assumption of the additive inverse, however, is compliant with the principle of opposites: it makes sense that when you add the two equal opposites together, they cancel out to zero.
	:0 = (-1)0 = (-1)(1+(-1)) <font color="#3333CC">''Split''</font> = (-1)1 + (-1)(-1) = ±1 + ±1
	:The result is '''-2, 0, 2''', which includes the initial zero and averages thereto, but also reflects the fact that you have <font color="#3333CC">''Split''</font> apart the zero into its polarised components, like splitting apart a photon into a positive and a negative particle.

	::I'm going to have to ask you what you mean by various concepts like "*" and "=" because your usage potentially differs greatly from most standard defintions.

	::Let's assume that

	:::1a = a1 = {-a,+a}

	::as you've stated. Now what do you mean by multiplication? We can use generalised mathematics, but you seem to want to stick with integers, so we'll stay there. Most people commonly mean

	:::a + a = 2*a
	:::a + a + a = 3*a

	::and so on. If we assume that you also mean this by "*" then we can write

	:::a + a = 2a = (1 + 1)a = 1a + 1a = {-a,+a} + {-a,+a}

	::I'm attempting to follow how you add these sets of numbers. Can we say

	:::{-a,+a} + {-a,+a} = {(-a) + (-a), (-a) + a, a + (-a),a + a} = {(-a) + (-a), 0, a + a}

	::or is that not what you mean? Either way, I am now struggling to understand what you mean by "=". Usually people mean the objects are identical. Mathematically (in an algebraic sense as this is) we mean that the objects have the same algebraic properties. Neither of these concepts of "=" accepts

	:::a + a = {-a,+a} + {-a,+a}

	::as a valid statement, so presumably either you mean something different by "*", or by "=".
	::I could suggest that you have introduced a new symbol "Split=" that relates objects differently than the "=" you use to equate numbers. Hopefully you could explain when two objects are "Split=".
	::] 00:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:39, 26 October 2024

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Time Cube article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17Auto-archiving period: 31 days

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Websites: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Internet culture Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative views Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Time Cube is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 24, 2004	Articles for deletion	Kept
February 3, 2004	Articles for deletion	Kept
March 30, 2005	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
April 26, 2005	Articles for deletion	Kept
October 26, 2006	Articles for deletion	Kept
October 29, 2008	Articles for deletion	Kept
March 16, 2010	Articles for deletion	Kept
July 29, 2010	Articles for deletion	Kept
Current status: Former featured article candidate

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

The contents of the Gene Ray page were merged into Time Cube. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Time Cube. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Time Cube at the Reference desk.

doctor's degree

Does he really have a PhD? Couldn't find anything about it, just that he started to call himself Dr. in 2002. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16b8:455b:cf00:c8bd:16d0:7f23:e322 (talk) 16:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Suicide of Richard Janczarski

This section does not include any mention of Janczarski commiting suicide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.162.80.73 (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

True. The reason is given here as an edit summary. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I've removed "Suicide of" from the heading as it's no longer applicable to the content. Schazjmd (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Help a Newbie Out

I made a few contributions to the page, mostly based on the past edit of Richard Janczarski's death being removed, but in return was mostly removed by a user named User:Schazjmd(I don't know how to link to names, hopefully what I did works). Hopefully he can help me out? I am new to wikipedia editing of course, and I understand why some of my edit's were removed, but I have a few questions. I hope I am typing this in the right place to even communicate this.

1. Why doesn't Fredrik Knudsen's documentary Down The Rabbit Hole on this topic not constitute as a source? In my view this would constitute as the greatest source outside of what is on the Cubic Awareness Online website/TimeCube website or their owners direct statements. If the documentary does constitute as a source, I'd like to know how to revise the edits I made to better suit this wikipage to better improve the accuracy of this article instead of just throwing everything from it out the window.

2. Richard Janczarski killed himself. This fact isn't really in dispute. I'd like to know why attempts to bring light of this significant event in TimeCubes history keep getting removed. So far it has just been "insignificant" source claims with both the Down The Rabbit Hole documentary and his gravestone. I understand just some random gravestone that could be his being removed, but this is definitely and not in dispute his gravestone.

A lot of TimeCube's history has gone unarchived, leading to these conflicts of not having any direct sources, but I am confused as why events that did take place and did happen to a definite degree are unable to be attributed to the TimeCube wikipage just because the evidence for them happening isn't retrievable, yet comments made in a school newspaper are somehow used as a proper source.

TL;DR Am a newbie, but want to better flesh out this article. Can someone help me out? UPDATED: Found reasons why that stuff was removed in earlier post, can it further be explained to me so I can fully understand and work around those imposed limitations? I just don't understand why it's so hard to express the fact that he died by suicide, which is important in relation to the article. Also, how can the Down The Rabbit Hole source be changed to better suit the claims made here? It feels like a complete waste just tossing it out because it says more than what it's being sourced for.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ThyShyFly (talk • contribs) 21:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

ThyShyFly, content requires reliable, independent sources for verifiability (learn more at WP:RS). User-generated content sources like YouTube are not considered reliable (with limited exceptions, which Knudsen's video doesn't meet). This is an article about a specific website, so Janczarski's death isn't relevant unless there is a reliable source noting it and connecting it to TimeCube in some way. Schazjmd (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Richard Janczarski

A recent edit by user:Prinsgezinde has removed Richard Janczarski in his entirety from the article. He states, "None of this is sourced anyway. If we're not going to write about him committing suicide because there is no source for it, why mention him at all? There is no source for him."

Going back into the history, the whole Richard Janczarski part had two sources, one linking to one of his youtube videos and the other to a radio interview. Neither really supported anything they were sourced to.

Despite the lack of evidence, I personally think the removal of the Richard Janczarski section is disappointing, as he was a huge part of the TimeCube saga, I'd even go as far to say that he was more important than Dr. Jene Ray himself just due to Richard's website, CubicAwarenessOnline, really making it clear (at least as clear as TimeCube can be) what TimeCube is about. Currently, other wiki related websites are leagues above this article on wikipedia just due to them having more information with regards to TimeCube.

Here are some important links related to Richard Janczarski.

https://yadi.sk/d/t8cdVYIpjMEPn in this radio interview, Richard Janczarski admits he got kicked out of university but got re-enrolled because of TimeCube. The interviewer also uses the term "Cubicist" to describe people who believed in TimeCube. Also gives the background behind his "Second Wisist Human" title. http://web.archive.org/web/20200220173816/http://cubicao.tk/CubicAwarenessOnline This is an archive of the CubicAwarenessOnline website, describes TimeCube in its entirety, and was the website around the GraveyardoftheGods community. https://www.youtube.com/user/Pyramid0rz Richard Janczarski's official youtube account, has lots of TimeCube videos with two seperate movie projects on it.

Lots more links, these are just some I had handy. I just think Richard Janczarski's entire removal from the wikipage would be a disappointment. Want to see what other editors think though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThyShyFly (talk • contribs) 19:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is based on independent, reliable, published sources. Cubic Awareness is Janczarski's personal website which is neither independent nor reliable. Same goes for his Youtube channel. The radio interview is the only source that's not self-published, however it is publishing Janczarski's words verbatim with no fact-checking or analysis. Since coverage in reliable sources is nonexistent, this section fails the due weight requirement, –dlthewave ☎ 13:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Seconded. All of that may be of interest to true heads on this topic but, and I say this as someone with my username, Misplaced Pages is not a fan wiki. Just because information is of interest to a reader deep into a particular topic doesn't mean it needs to be added here, especially with the sort of references cited to include it. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 07:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Huh, Misplaced Pages didn't notify me of the mention like it usually does. Strange. Anyway, ThyShyFly, I fully get where you're coming from. The two issues are that there was a severe lack of proper sourcing for the content we provided, and that we were pretty much forced to leave out the most important parts anyway due to, again, lack of sourcing. It would be perfect if reliable sources described his involvement with Ray and his suicide, but without that, what would be the point in mentioning his name? His description in existing sources is not notable and I agree that it would fail WP:DUE. Maybe some news site will look back the events somewhere in the future. Let's hope. Prinsgezinde (talk) 11:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Prinsgezinde: Understandable, but I would think it’s at least worth mentioning that Time Cube had another adherent (that is, apart from Gene Ray). Apparently Janczarski’s YouTube contributions are considered notable enough for IMDB (https://www.imdb.com/name/nm10919055/). Rovingrobert (talk) 10:19, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

This is one of many reasons why IMdB does not meet WP's reliable source criteria. DoctorJoeE /_Talk 15:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

There are aspects of IMDB which are pretty reliable, especially cast lists. But being in IMDB does not necessarily qualify a given work as being notable under wikipedia rules. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreement

It appears that there is one statement by this Ray guy that everyone can agree on: "Ray asserted repeatedly and variously that the academic world had not taken Time Cube seriously." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Categories: