Talk:Time Cube: Difference between revisions

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

Revision as of 18:24, 4 November 2004 editLifefeed (talk \| contribs)1,025 edits it's poetry← 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 ==
	==Section removed==

			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>
	was removed by an anonymous user, with the explanation "The time cube theory uses the cube as an analogy to help describe ideas. Stretching the analogy is not a good way to refute the theory." I'm no Time Cube expert, but it seems to me that Gene stretches the analogy ''himself'', which would make this a perfectly valid subject of criticism. Comments, anyone? ] 19:05, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

			== Suicide of Richard Janczarski ==
	: I think the time cube is nonsense, but "stretching an analogy too far" means drawing false conclusions by assuming that the perfectly describes something else. If Gene Ray is using the analog to draw new conclusions, it's possible that this happened. It's also possible that he made conclusions without reasoning about an actual cube. Neither you nor I know which of these happened.

			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 probable that he feels there are no remotely adequate words to describe the concept he has (I think that this is the reason he calls words evil). If this is the case, he might use an analogy to try to get his general idea across. If "cubelike" is a fairly adequate word, you would be justified in saying that he stretches the word (not the analogy) a bit too much. However, if he feels there are no words that are even close (including "cube"), he would be justified in picking the word that makes the best analog and stretching the word to make it fit what he's trying to say. Giving new definitions to old words when mainstream science makes a discovery is an accepted practice.
			: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 ==
	: Now, on to the removed section itself. The criticism of "quadrant" because it uses a nonstandard definition was deleted first. There is no suitable replacement and Gene Ray gives a clear definition of it, so it should cause no confusion. The use of the term, by itself, certainly doesn't cause any logical errors.

			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.
	: The criticism of "cube" was because Gene Ray focuses on the four sides of the cube and ignores the top and bottom. This is perfectly reasonable if the concept deals only with a four-sided, cubelike object. The top and bottom would be irrelevant to the theory, regardless of the fact that the top and bottom are symmetrical with each of the sides. '''''Ignoring irrelevant attributes of an analog is preferred because it focuses on the things that are actually similar and important to understanding and it ignores things that are dissimilar or unimportant'''''. Bringing them up is foolish and a ].

			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.
	: Bringing up the fact that four is a square number, rather than a cube number, is also a red herring. If the thing under discussion is better understood by analogy to a three-dimensional shape (like a cube with the top and bottom missing), then using a square to represent it is stupid. A cube with two sides missing is much closer to a cube than a square and no amount of saying "but four is a square number" will change that.

			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.
	: ] 23:40, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

			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.
	::A cube with two sides missing might have only 4 sides, but it still has 8 corners. Who said 4 sides primarily symbolize the square! I would postulate that the 4 corners of a square are more important than the 4 sides. Thus, on that note, I suggest that this legitmiate criticism remain. I happen to endorse Time Cube and the surrounding philosophy in its entirity, and I believe that without proper criticism to stimulate geometric fervor, the Time Cube may be forgotten in an anti-mathematical crusade. ] 06:53, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

			TL;DR Am a newbie, but want to better flesh out this article. Can someone help me out?
	::Okay, this is quite sufficiently detailed to convince me the removal was well thought out. Thanks for answering; I tend to err on the side of caution when someone I don't recognize deletes a large block of text that I don't fully understand and I hope I didn't come across as assuming bad intentions. :) ] 00:26, 31 May 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)
	== 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)

			== 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)

			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."
	::I think there should be, obviously, as I wrote . Feel free to put it back, or preferably to improve upon it, I don't think it's the last word by any means. I caution against any careless use of technical terms in criticising the Time Cube, Ray does this all the time in promoting it and if others do too this will just make the confusion worse. ] 07:12, 29 Jun 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.
	:::You might also note what I said in the February ] earlier this year: ''Significant crackpot theory based on the false premise that the cube is closely related to the number four''. Perhaps that could be also better put, but I think that, contrary to what the anon above says, the mathematical weaknesses in the Time Cube symbolism are blatant enough to be significant. If so, this is relevant to understanding exactly what Ray is doing, which is the very last thing Ray himself wants. In hindsight I've gone back to my original thinking in the January VfD debate, this article should be a redirect to ], which doesn't need another VfD debate. There is no evidence that anyone else promotes this theory, let alone significant numbers of people, and if so current policy would be that it doesn't get an article of its own. Ray himself deserves an article, he's significant if only for his critics. It's also interesting IMO that this latest debate is by an anon who ''claims'' to reject the "theory", but whose edits to this talk page and the article seem to reduce the content of both pages and enhance Ray's credibility. There have been many edits from this IP, but are they all the same person? Probably not another Ray glove puppet is my guess, but we have no way of knowing. All we know is that Ray does seem to have lots of time to set up Internet accounts etc.. ] 21:00, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

			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.
	::::Under the circumstances, then, I think the deleted material should be restored again. I don't think the anon user is Ray, he seems far too lucid for that, but it seems that at least some pieces of the baby were thrown out with the bathwater in this case. Since the symbolism problems do seem to be brought up commonly by Time Cube critics, they should be addressed here even if they turn out to be unfounded. ] 23:39, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

			Here are some important links related to Richard Janczarski.
	:::::In response to Andrewa's request for evidence of people other than Gene Ray supporting Time Cube, this may be helpful. Many of the people who have signed this petition (of course, some are but educated stupid Academians and brainwashed religious zealots who are attempting to suppress the Cubic Truth) along with the person who created the petition, do indeed support Nature's Harmonic Time Cube and hold the opinion that "Time Cube debate should be mandated in all academic and social institutions" -- and I think we can consider Misplaced Pages a "social institution". Also, Andrewa, since you hold testimonies in such high regard, I will now testify that contrary to your "glove puppet" claim, I am not Gene Ray.

			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.
	: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.
			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-->
	: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.

			: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)
	:: 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)
			: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)
	:::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).
			::{{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 ==
	:::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).
			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)

	:::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 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)

	==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 <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)


	==Help==

	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.

	Thanks,

	] 23:30, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

	----

	Anon,

	Here are the reasons I've made the changes to the article that I have:

	*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.''

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: