Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bryan Derksen (talk | contribs) at 19:05, 30 May 2004 (Questioning removal of a section by an anonymous user). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

See Talk:Time Cube/Delete for a past discussion on whether this article should have been deleted.

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 Time Cube forum. No closed-minded Academian pedants, please.

UPDATE: The forum is out of commission. However I may discuss Time Cube on user talk pages, like I did with Andrewa.

Archived debate: Andrewa vs. TIME CUBE

Section removed

This entire section 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? Bryan 19:05, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Problems with the Time Cube symbolism

The Time Cube theory is based on the claimed supremacy of the number four, but the connection between four and the cube is weak.

The figure most often used to represent the number four is the square, a planar figure. If a solid is required to represent the number four, the most obvious candidate is the tetrahedron.

There is a strong and obvious connection between four and the square, and another obvious connection between the square and the cube. But despite this there is no particularly strong relationship between four and the cube. The most that can be said is that the faces of the cube each have four equal sides and angles.

In arithmetic, four is a square number, but it is not a cubic number.

This weakness shows up in two main ways.

Firstly, and most important, one of the symmetries of the cube is ignored. The sides are considered as unrelated to the top and bottom. But, an essential property of the cube is that the top and bottom are congruent to the sides. To treat them specially means that what is described is not a cube in essence, but rather a right rectangular prism with a square base, a type of figure of which the cube is a special case. In this way the relatively strong connection between six and the cube is replaced by an artificial connection to four.

Secondly, the term quadrant is strangely defined in this theory. Normally this term applies to a plane figure, a quarter of a circle. Where it is used to speak of a solid figure, it most commonly means a quarter of a hemisphere. A sphere may be divided into eight such quadrants; In this theory however, it is divided into four. In this way, the relatively strong connection between eight and the cube is replaced by another artificial connection to four.

The whole thing, in fact, is incoherent and is mostly unintelligible--it is not possible to comprehend what Gene Ray is trying to say to us at all.

Many people view Ray to be simply insane. As a refutation, he asserts on the Time Cube website, "My wisdom so antiquates known knowledge, that a psychiatrist examining my behavior, eccentric by his academic single corner knowledge, knows no course other than to judge me schizoprenic."