Talk:Time Cube/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Kosebamse's anti-Cubic crusade

Kosebamse, your edits are displaying a bias towards Cubeless 1-corner Academic religious beliefs. I will address the changes that are required for NPOV.

• • You describe my bias in such an exact and eloquent fashion that I could not possibly express it any better. Kosebamse
• "From a scientific point of view" -- this displays a religious faith that the current Academian scientific principles represent an absolute truth. It is, however, a proven fact -- see "Proof" below -- that these principles tend to represent but 1-corner of the 4-corner whole; and moreover, that they are excessively convoluted and muddled, which places them at a disadvantage with regard to Occam's razor.
  • No it doesn't. The scientific method does not claim to represent an absolute truth, as it is merely a method to test and develop theories. Your "proof" consists of a "page not found" at Yahoo. That's hardly convincing. Kosebamse
    • The link should have worked, but I have provided alternative means below. We should refer to this scientific method as the accepted Academian one, to avoid presenting it as absolute.
      • If you want to criticise the scientific method, you might like to try Usenet. This article and its talk page are not about the scientific method but about a set of ideas that nobody except you and Mr Ray (if you are not Ray himself) defends or even understands.Kosebamse
        • I'm not criticising it, but merely specifying that we are referring to the currently accepted Academian concepts, not some absolute truth.
          • Science is very well aware of its limitations (that's why a theory without testable concepts is not scientific), and it is universally accepted that absolute truth is an elusive goal for scientists (as opposed to cranks, even if they come in the diguise of scientists). Kosebamse
            • On the contrary, the fundamental laws of the universe exist right in front of our eyes. Scientists don't notice it because they are too busy engaging in religious worship in underground particle-acceleration cathedrals. See CubicAO for explanations of the ineffable TruthCube.
              • It seems that you have come to admit that you are promoting beliefs, not science. Your idea of what scientists are and do is a little bizarre, to say the least. Kosebamse
                • No, this is logic. The fundamental laws of the universe govern the universe in which we exist. Therefore, everything we see before our eyes is a manifestation of the fundamental laws. Sometimes the manifestations are rather convoluted, though. We should aim to use Occam's Razor to unravel them, rather than merely complicating them in subterranean scientific satan-machines.
• "a lack of testable hypotheses or predictions" -- must be specified as "alleged", since it represents not an absolute truth, but rather, an inertia precluding rapid acceptance of the actual truth. This truth is that there are indeed testable hypotheses in support of Time Cube -- that is, observable real-life Cubic manifestations. For an overview of these, see Talk:Gene Ray.
  • It is a subtly biased expression to speak of an "alleged" lack of such constructs, because that implies that the writer of such a text negates their existence although they exist. As long as you, presumably our foremost expert in cubic thinking, can't demonstrate testable constructs, I'll consider them nonexistent. As long as you merely claim their existence without demonstrating them, their absence is not only "alleged". Kosebamse
    • See Talk:Gene Ray, on which I provided an overview of how Cubic principles are empirically observable. If you would like more detail, we can discuss it further there.
      • I have not seen anything remotely reminiscent of an emprically observable manifestation of your "principles". Kosebamse
        • Talk:Gene Ray I have marked the section as "Overview of testable/observable Cubic hypotheses".
          • I have seen the pages that you refer to, but I have not seen anything resembling a testable concept or proof of anything. They are essentially a collection of kindergarten drawings and nebulous misuse of scientific vocabulary. Kosebamse
            • All we really have in the way of clear factual statements is the mathematical one, which I think it is safe to say does not in any reasonable way accord with reality (I fail to believe that all quantities are equal to 0) 65.95.160.205 02:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
              • But they are, because positrons are counterbalanced by electrons, and matter by antimatter. Now if you are talking about a quantity of energy, then note that it always travels at the speed of light -- so energy going right is counterbalanced by energy going left. Ultimately, it all reduces to zero. See Talk:Gene Ray for discussion of testability.
                • This is fundamentall missing the point. If we exclude antimatter and negative energy from our count of object or measure of energy then we still get zero according to your arithmetic. Following your math you are no just saying that the totality of the universe cancels to zero, but every possible subset of the universe is also necessarily zero. You can't go cancelling that with antimatter, because we can simply choose the set of all matter objects (specifically excluding antimatter) and that is still 0. 65.95.160.205 22:21, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
                • It has become obvious that our esteemed Gene Ray fan pursues concepts that are essentially philosophical in nature, to say it politely. While I am not qualified to judge the mathematical details of Ray's proclamations, I am confident that the assumption that all quantities are equal to 0 is useless if one wants to learn anything about the physical world. Kosebamse
                  • As I explain above, everything cancels to zero; however, it's not just one-way, but cyclical, meaning that zero also anti-cancels to everything. I'm sure that some people will be reluctant to pick up on this point, because similarly with the definition of "corners" as "vertical edges" in accordance with the rotational property, it denies them a foothold to gain credibility from their indoctrinated anti-Cubic prejudices.
• "The most common view seems to be that Time Cube is eccentric nonsense" -- if it were nonsense, defying all sensibility, then the widespread Cubic discourse, concerned with evaluating the Cubic principles, would not have been able to take place. There has been much perfectly lucid Cube-discussion on various websites -- including, of course, this one. If you like, I can give several links supporting this.
  
  In the interest of keeping Wikipedia's content clear and solid, we must also avoid weaselly-vapid non-committal speculative statements reliant on such words as "seems". Let's try "is" or "isn't" instead.
  • There is an overwhelming amount of absolute nonsense on the Internet, including lucid discussions, discourse and whatnot, but that doesn't prove anything about the merits of a specific idea. See http://www.crank.net/ for some links. If you like, I can give many more links regarding the most outrageous bullshit that human minds are capable of creating. And I'll be perfectly happy to write that "the most common view is that Time Cube is eccentric nonsense". Kosebamse
    • If it is able to be discussed lucidly, that shows that it does make sense to some extent, even if it is false. See "Proof" for the proof of Time Cube, which shows its merits. If something makes sense but is considered untrue, I would describe it as a "false theory" rather than "nonsense". Show me some links with nonsense that is being lucidly discussed.
      • These ideas are not testable, thus not falsifiable, thuis not a scientific theory. Regarding your "proof" I am sorry to say that I have found nothing that looks like a falsifiable prediction or experimental testing of one. Regarding lucid discussion of absolute nonsense, see dada for a political and artistic movement that might suit your ambitions, and the multitude of links from crankdotnet. Kosebamse
        • Generally being discusse lucidly can equally be a sign of fundamental misunderstandings of basic concepts. I would suggest that is clear here in the mathematics dicussion. 65.95.160.205 02:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • 65.95.160.205, it is you who misunderstands the fact that all the universe cancels to zero, and that the convoluted rules in Academian mathematics are reduced by Occam's Razor to a simpler, Cubic-compliant form.
            • You have reduced it to a simpler system, yes. It is a system where every calculation, every count is zero. Every mathematical theorem of any kind can be proved true. Any mathematical theorem of any kind can also be proved false. It is indeed a simple system, because the answer to any question is always zero. Simplicity does not imply correctness. 65.95.160.205 22:21, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • The idea that all the universe cancels to zero is essentially philosphical or religious specualtion, but not a scientific concept, at least not in the form in which you present it. If you claim science, show us a testable explanation of physical phenomena that timecubism offers, and we'll be able to discuss it. If you can't, kindly admit that your "science" isn't science in any accepted sense of the word. If you want to coin new words or ascribe new meanings to words, fine, it is long-standing policy that Wikipedia is not the place for that.Kosebamse
              • See Talk:Gene Ray for testability. Note my explanation above: "positrons are counterbalanced by electrons, and matter by antimatter. Now if you are talking about a quantity of energy, then note that it always travels at the speed of light -- so energy going right is counterbalanced by energy going left." -- this is concrete, not just speculation.
        • The dada article didn't inform me of any of the specific content of Dada. The actual content may be nonsense, since the article, while lucid, discusses only its context and history. The lucid Cubic discussions to which I referred contain actual discussion of the Cubic principles.
          • Dadaism is essentially deliberate use of nonsense to challenge an established school of thought. To me the whole timecubism looks strongly like applied zealotic dadaism.Kosebamse
            • To me it looks like you could be denying that Time Cube makes sense. It is frequently discussed lucidly (I can give links if you like), so if there are flaws or misunderstandings you should be able to specify them.
              • There's nothing to deny because there is nothing that timecubism explains any better than accepted physics, if it explains anything at all, which I doubt. Kosebamse
                • It proves 4 simultaneous days, and that time is Cubic. Academic 1-corner physics doesn't explain this proven fact, therefore it is inferior. Time Cube explains the meaning of life. See Talk:Gene Ray for testability.
• "and geometry, some argue" -- if we refer to anti-Cubic arguments, NPOV requires us to mention also the pro-Cubic counter-arguments.
  • If they exist in any comprehensible form. Kindly explain what the "time cube" has to do with geometry beyond its name. Kosebamse
    • See Cube representation for explanation of Cubic geometric principles.
      • As I said above, these pages contain nothing (except misused terminology) that is compatible with scientific concepts. Kosebamse
        • Cube representation explains the Cube geometry and its basis. You asked for geometry, so don't change the subject to science. Misused terminology is only relevant if it obstructs communication of the concept; and if it is relevant, then you will have to cite the specific terminology in question, and how it is being misused, if the criticism is to be substantiated and constructive.
          • Geometry is a mathematical, thus scientifc concept. Would you, instead of continuously referring to those websites, kindly cite a single testable construct based on timecubism, i.e. one that explains anything and can be subjected to an attempt at experimental falsification? Kosebamse
            • Geometry is reducible to arithmetic (see Frege), and in cubic arithmetic (apparently, see discussion above) everything is zero, hence in cubic geometry everything is a point (everything is the same point in fact). That would seem to be testable. It would also seem to be false. 65.95.160.205 02:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
              • Everything cancels to a point, but likewise the point anti-cancels out to a spectacular universe-environment. 4 is the harmonic division of the fundamental universe-geometrical-principle of rotation. See Talk:Gene Ray for testability.
                • You can't "anti-cancel" anything, because any of the elements of your "anti-cancelled" point is also a point - and not just any point, the orginal point. Your system is not claiming only that all totality cancels, but that any object, any subset, anything at all, cancels down to zero, to a point, to no existence. "I think therefore I am" --Descartes. Something exists, and it is not nothing. Time Cube arithmetic states that anything you choose is actually nothing. I choose the thing that is not nothing (and no other things for it to "cancel" with). The theory is contradicted and thus false. 65.95.160.205
                  • Something does exist, but it exists within opposites and cancels to nothing. Then it anti-cancels back to something. Yes, the something can then again cancel back to zero, but it is nonetheless existent in the interim.
                • I don't care what you believe, but if you admit that it's beliefs that you promote, kindly allow the Wikipedia article to state that. Kosebamse
                  • It's a belief in rationality, and in using logic rather than Academic religious brainwashing to understand the universe. See Time Cube and CubicAO for rational Cube-explanations.
• "Due to the general attitude that Time Cube is eccentric nonsense, Ray currently poses no threat to academia and the government, entities which he considers evil." -- It is the attitude among high-ranking Academians and religious zealots that is the cause of the lack of threat. In the case of these specific groups, "nonsense" does tend to be the label employed -- since if they admitted it to make sense, they would run a much greater risk of destruction through revolutions resulting from the public gaining Cubic awareness.
  • Kindly demonstrate why and in what way your expression "Academians and religious zealots" denotes anything beyond a propagandistic term for "people who disagree with us". Kosebamse
    • "Members of Academic and religious institutions" is the expression I used in the article, and it denotes people who specifically belong to the evil institution-entities cited. As I explained above, in this case we are limiting it to these people rather than the entire public.
      • You claim that your ideas are scientific, therfore it is appropriate to discuss how they are seen from a scientifc point of view. Like it or not, practically nobody takes your ideas seriously (except perhaps as an elaborate joke), and therefore it is not appropriate to limit the "general attitude" to science and religion. Kosebamse
        • Time Cube is based on rationality, and is scientific to the extent that you define science as being based on rationality (as opposed to irrational dogma). If the scientific method you believe in is rational, then you should be able to justify all aspects of it in terms of rationality.
          
          Also, I already explained why, in this particular case, we should limit the group to members of Academic and religious institutions: ""Due to the general attitude that Time Cube is eccentric nonsense, Ray currently poses no threat to academia and the government, entities which he considers evil." -- It is the attitude among high-ranking Academians and religious zealots that is the cause of the lack of threat. In the case of these specific groups, "nonsense" does tend to be the label employed -- since if they admitted it to make sense, they would run a much greater risk of destruction through revolutions resulting from the public gaining Cubic awareness."
          • This is a place for discussion, not for propaganda. Kindly explain why you think that those evil institution suppress your version of truth. Kosebamse 06:19, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • Because they are based on religion, and religion is based on 1-corner self-aggrandising. They care not about empowering the community, only about ephemeral self-empowerment. Nuclear bombs are no good, since although they can give people threat-power, they ultimately tend to blow up and kill everyone, resulting in no power remaining.
              • What has this to do with critiscism of your ideas? Kosebamse
                • Time Cube represents 4-corner truth, so 1-corner believers deny it and seek to prevent it from becoming known. They don't want people enlightened with 4-corner Cubic knowledge, because it could induce revolutions that would bring about the demise of their evil institutions of WordMurder.

Proof

See articles at Time Cube Theory category for proof of 4 simultaneous days in 1-earth rotation, and that Time is Cubic, not linear.

• • "Yahoo. Sorry, the page you requested was not found." Kosebamse
    • It appears I used the wrong wiki syntax (| instead of space); if it still doesn't work, try this link, or go to Cubic Awareness Online homepage and click on "Time Cube Theory".
      • Proof? What proof? All I see there is dadaistic misuse of scientifc terminology. Kosebamse
        • If such misuse does exist, and it is significantly hampering the communication of the concepts, then it is up to you to substantiate your assertion by explaining what terminology is being misused, and how. For specific proofs, see 4/16 Rotation Principle for proof of 4 simultaneous days in a single earth-rotation; and Time is Cubic, not Linear for proof of the Cubic nature of Time.
          • You might like to read scientific evidence to learn what "proof" means in science. One thing that is not included in its meaning is mere proclamations. The pages that you quote do not even formally resemble scientific argumentation.Kosebamse
            • You need to be more specific. What is the definition of formal scientific argumentation, and what is the rational basis for it being required? Clearly the pages contain reasoning, not just assertions. You will need to refute this reasoning. Legitimate refutations do not include "No, you are ignorant, read the unrelated science article" -- it is true that mere proclamations are not acceptable.

strictly speaking, this article should be deleted for the unencyclopedic nonsense it is. But seeing its entertainment value, and its notoriety in internet culture, I do think it has a place on Wikipedia. Let's be clear that this is about the outpourings of a schizophrenic net kook. Of course the theory has "supporters", in the same sense the pink unicorn has "believers". The internet is a surreal place :o) dab (ᛏ) 08:35, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let's be clear that such an addition would flagrantly violate NPOV requirements. I'd like to see you disprove Time Cube.

Bah! I'd like to see you disprove the Invisible Pink Unicorn (Blessed be her hooves). 65.95.160.205 22:26, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Occam's razor. We don't require it to explain the universe. I didn't see logical proof of the pink unicorn in the article. You could claim logical validity for "it exists, but invisible, therefore we can't see it", but we simplify the concept of reality by using Occam's razor to trim it from the realm of existence. Now if you have actual logical or empirical proof of the pink unicorn, please state it.

Occam's Razor. We don't require 4 simultaneous dyas, nor cubic time to explain the universe. I haven't seen a logical proof of Time Cube in the article, nor elsewhere. You could claim logical validity for "4 is special because of this particular instance where it is special", but that's no different from "6 is special because it is the smallest possible perfect number" or "2 is special because it is the only number that can be both even and prime". It's not a proof, merely a statement. If you have actual logical or empirical proof of cubic time that can actually be understood, please state it. If you have only waffle and references to incomprehensible we pages that wantonly misuse mathematical notation, special and general relativity, and geometry, please state it. 65.95.160.205 06:09, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As stated in the article, the supremacy of 4 pertains to the 4-corner-quadrant division. The division of Cubic space into a plane and a line, e.g. rotational plane and rotational axis, is obviously quite natural and not arbitrary. The 4-corner-quadrant division pertains to the plane. As explained in the article, this proves the supremacy of 4; furthermore, apply a rotation and you get a 4/16 rotation principle, which proves 4 simultaneous days in a single rotation of Earth.

Why is division of the plane relevant? Why is that the defining feature for defining the most important number in the universe? 4 is not prime - it is thus decomposable into prime elements. Contrast this to 2, which is prime, and its resonances occur harmonically thoughout the number line preventing any other balanced even number also being prime. Clearly 2 is the fundamental number, as no other even (harmonic, balanced) number can be prime, and hence can be decomposed into lower order numbers, including the fundamental number 2. Four is clearly merely an extension of the power of two as 4 = 2 + 2 = 2*2 = 2^2. The significance of 4 is clearly directly related to the greater significance of 2, thus I have proved that 2 is supreme number in the universe.

Certainly the 4-corner-quadrant division relates back to the 2 opposites. However, only with four may the dynamic 4/16 rotational property occur, so we must acknowledge four as a fundamental number. There are also the 2 static opposites; I think 2 is also fundamental.

On a related tangent, if space is 3 dimensional and time is 3 dimensional, then spacetime is 6 dimensional and rotation decomposes to a rotational axes and a 5-dimensional hyperplane, which in turn does not respect 4 as a division regarding the principles you suggest.

There's a 4-corner-quadrant division in space and a 4-corner-quadrant division in time. If you're talking about the number of dimensions, you should know that Cartesian axes are 1-corner due to their infinite nature, and due to their negative and positive halves being subjected to the single-corner sign-bias. Think of them in terms of equal opposites and spacetime foldback, and in terms of a group of 3 being divided into a 2-plane and a 1-line.

On a different tangent, why is having internal angles equal to external angles a requirement for a space division? That seems rather arbitrary, but it is this fact that your "proof" of the supremacy of 4 is based upon. Can you explain why this fact makes one space division "better" than another?

1: the equator circle exists around a centre point. We radiate lines out from the centre to the circle; that's the 4-quadrant division. 2: the circle exists on a finite area of the plane; this is represented by the bounding square. Only the harmonic 4-corner-quadrant division represents the inherent link between these two fundamental concepts.

Repeat ad nauseam. It's blatantly clear that there's nothing testable about these ideas (except a mathematical concept that seems rather ludicrous), so ther's no way to disprove them. It's philosophy, to phrase it politely, although "outpourings of a schizophrenic net kook" may be more appropriate. Kosebamse

More appropriate for the purpose of violating NPOV. See Talk:Gene Ray for testability.

It's hopeless

See Talk:Gene_Ray#It's hopeless. Kosebamse 08:28, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)