This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
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)
I think the time cube is nonsense, but "stretching an analogy too far" means drawing false conclusions by assuming that the analog 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.
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.
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.
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 red herring.
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.
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. Flying Hamster 06:53, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The cube has 8 vertices, but in Time Cube terminology, "corners" refer not to vertices but to vertical edges (those parallel to the rotational axis). The Cube is created by projecting the square along a perpendicular axis through its centre; thus, the square's 4 vertex-corners become 4 vertical-edge-corners of a Cube. It's like in a Cube-shaped room; the corners are the vertical edges where the walls intersect.
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. :) Bryan 00:26, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
I think there should be, obviously, as I wrote the deleted section about this problem. 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. Andrewa 07:12, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
You might also note what I said in the February VfD debate 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 Gene Ray, 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,[sic] 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.. Andrewa 21:00, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
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. Bryan 23:39, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
In response to Andrewa's request for evidence of people other than Gene Ray supporting Time Cube, this pro-Cubic petition 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 Wikipedia 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.
