Talk:Gene Ray/Archive 1

VfD listing

• we don't need an article on every lunatic with a website. --Wik 14:16, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete. Anjouli 14:35, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • I wholeheartedly agree that Wikipedia would be happier without this kind of, erm, knowledge, however[sic] there should be some way to handle the stuff that all the 211.28.xxx.xxx anons keep adding - just reverting will not work, Wik. Kosebamse 14:38, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • I'd say that Gene Ray is a notable lunatic with a website. Keep, unless he's more obscure in pointing-and-laughing circles than I thought. Onebyone 15:04, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep. TimeCube.com is one of the more well-known kook websites, and Ray is an interesting figure. What other kooks been[sic] given the opportunity to preside over a large debate at MIT? 80.58.0.107 15:22, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC) (the proxycache.rima-tde.net anon)

• • • As much as it makes me want to cry, I have to agree with the above --Raul654 15:43, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I also agree with the above! Some of Gene Ray's claims are mentioned in the comment by Smerdis of Tlön (below)—if these claims are nonsense, then why are Academic pedants recommending the censorship by deletion of all Wikipedia content pertaining to Time Cube? Gene Ray is an altruistic man who has made an independent discovery and has invested many years of time and effort in order to make this discovery known to the public. Censorship of Time Cube would equate to no less than a travesty of unimaginable magnitude, which would doom all humanity to Hell on Earth. Is Academia so evil as to allow such an abomination to occur?
  • Only a lying professor or an educated stupid scientist would think of deleting an article about the TimeCube and its creator! I had heard of TimeCube before I had ever heard of Wikipedia. Keep. -- Smerdis of Tlön 20:58, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete. This nonsense is not worth having on a credible encyclopædia. FearÉIREANN 21:21, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • While his theory isn't credible, information about it may be. I'm against Bradfordism and Reptilian Humanoids and Kranism, but Gene Ray and the Time Cube do have a certain notoriety on the web, and an NPOV explanation of it is useful. Keep. orthogonal 22:38, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • If you think this isn't credible, then what do you delete next? Erich von Däniken? Cyrus Teed? George Adamski? (Yes, I checked, and we do have articles for all three of them). Adamski's theories are a lot more unlikely and kooky than those of this Gene Ray fellow, and yet people seem perfectly content to let the articles on other people slide. Frankly, if I were to read the biggest encyclopedia on Earth that purported to be exhaustive, I'd be more concerned if I didn't find an article on von Däniken (what would seem like a glaring omission) than if they did have an NPOV article on the man. Save deletion for people who are obscure, not whose theories you of all people happen to disagree with. Wiwaxia 06:08, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • (You forgot Velikovsky.) But seriously: Gene Ray may be a complete crank, but he's a moderately well-known crank. Besides which, other Internet cultural phenomena—comparable in significance to, if larger in scope than, Gene Ray's amusing lunacy—have their own articles. Keep, sez I. --Mirv 12:05, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • To add my 2 bytes to the matter, this is badly written, reguardless of topic, and ought to be shot down on that point at least. I mean, what IS this cubic time they speak of? Can we get some more information? If not, delete. -Litefantastic 8:39, 25 Nov 2003 (Eastern Time)
    • That's exactly the problem here - it's just some bogus idea with a lot of PR and absolutely no substance to it, so all you can possibly write about is the PR (see [1] among others) and the nutter behind it. Unfortunately the Gene Ray fans are rather persistent in promoting their kookery on Wikipedia (but even they can't elucidate on the substance of the time cube, only add links and shout censorship). Kosebamse 04:08, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep. He's not particularly notable in the "real world", but he is quite notable in internet circles. --Delirium 07:13, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep. Martin 20:49, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep; Wikipedia is not paper. – Olathe 05:35, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep! TimeCube is an internet goldmine of debate and entertainment. (I have learned a LOT from this wiki entry) User:Grinick 3:01 , 22 Sep 2005
  • Delete. The man is several knives past the full set.

Removed from VfD - interesting to a range of Wikipedians. Martin 19:14, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The Use Of Humor In This Article

Apropros of nothing, (i) I believe that the short section on Gene's pre-cube days is the driest, funniest set of paragraphs I have ever read and (ii) will Gene ever attain the fame of such eccentrics as Joshua A. Norton, Wesley Willis, or for that matter semi-eccentrics such as Stanley Unwin and Kenneth Williams? Is Gene self-aware? Is there a "notable eccentrics" category on Wikipedia?

• I would really like to see a page on notable eccentrics my self. There are too many to mention in a long format, so a running list with a sentance for each link would suffice. User:Grinick

On this subject, I think the use of humor (however "veiled" it is) is not appropriate for Wikipedia articles — it needs to go to Uncyclopedia. That includes any tutorials that "disprove" the theory, or quotes you're probably referring to like:

Critics of Ray like to draw attention to his "marbles period" because they consider it inconsistent with his later Time Cube theory. ... But supporters of Ray see his circle-based philosophy as a natural precursor to the Time Cube.

I'm sorry, that's not meant in earnest. And the use of constant quotes from Ray in italics is not the kind of thing you'd see in any featured article candidate. Even if we can say that the people citing details are taking it seriously, the deconstructions would count as "original research" if documented here. There are "encyclopedic" aspects to Gene Ray's life, but it's important to focus on those here and leave the funnies for other sites. Metaeducation 16:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Overview of testable/observable Cubic hypotheses =

From the fundamental Cubic principles, we may broadly define manifestations of Cubic geometry evident in reality. Firstly, that everything is cyclical. In the case of large-scale phenomena, such as cyclicality of galaxy death and rebirth, and that of the universe as a whole, our observational capabilities may not suffice; but on smaller scales, cyclicality certainly is measurable.

A second observable influence is the life that has evolved on Earth, representing an interaction between chaos and Time Cube. Cubic properties are evident in lifeforms -- see Cubiform and Pyramidal Lifeforms, and Cycles, Systems and Complexities in Nature.

Firstly let me state that I am not on a crusade. I have often edited Gene Ray and Time Cube, but I did this because I believe that even topics on the very border of the comprehensible deserve good articles. I don't deny that I have in the past voted to delete them, and that I consider Ray's ideas utter and complete nonsense, but even utter and complete nonsense can be presented in a factual and unbiased way, and that's what I am trying to do here.Kosebamse

- Occam's razor: 1) you write that it is "argued to favour the simple Cubic rules over more convoluted theories, as well as baseless religious beliefs" - If you say it is argued, cite your sources. Where, when, and by whom was this argued?Kosebamse

It has been argued on Gene Ray's official TimeCube websites; as well as on Cubic Awareness Online, in articles including "Religion" and "-1 * -1 = +1 is Stupid and Evil".

In which case it would be appropriate to avoid weaselspeak and say that Ray and his followers argue thusly (if he has any - I have not seen anybody argue in favor of him except you, and I am not convinced that you are not Ray himself. And by the way, would please sign your comments) Kosebamse

I added "proponents of Cubicism".

2) "favour simple ... rules over more convoluted theories" is the exact opposite of what Occam's razor states, namely, that of two equally strong explanations the simpler one is to be preferred Kosebamse

"Strong" presumably refers to logical validity and consistency with the available evidence. Would it not then be entirely possible to make a theory that is excessively convoluted, yet "strong" nonetheless? For instance, I can introduce into a theory the unnecessary element of a God, as well as the assumption that any evidence contradicting the God is just an illusion. Ignoring Occam's razor, this would logically concur with empirical evidence.

One could not use Occam's razor in the situation that a simpler theory has been disproven through other means; but where they are both "strong", as defined above, my statement holds true. I could perhaps add to the statement that the simple Cubic rules are "strong".

The point is not whether your "rules" are simpler or more complicated than others. The point is that Occam's razor is applied to explanations of phenomena. Your "rules" do not explain anything insofar as they use inappropriate concepts. Since time is not a geometric entity, it is nonsensical to describe it as cubic. If you would like to apply Occam's razor to your ideas, you would first have to demonstrate that they explain anything. Kosebamse

Time is proven to be of a Cubic nature. Geometric constructs such as a 4/16 rotation -- proven to exist -- require the 3-dimensional cubic-time for their existence.

You are using "proof" and "proven" in a way that has nothing to do with a generally accepted usage of the term. If you claim to have proven a scientific concept, you have to demonstrate at the very least that it is testable and has resisted attempts at falsification.Kosebamse

You can attempt to falsify the Earth's rotation then, in regard to the 4/16 rotation. We reason from that self-evident empirical fact to prove 4 simultaneous days in 1 rotation. You could also refute the reasoning in order to disprove the 4/16 rotation. See below for testability/observability of Cube-ramifications.

Kindly explain what is "self-evident empirical fact", what is your reasoning and what is your conclusion.Kosebamse

The Earth's rotation is the self-evident empirical fact. The reasoning is that we divide the rotation into 4-corner quadrants (in accordance with thesupremacy of four), and rotate it once, which yields 16 spacetime configurations. From this, we deduce 4 simultaneous days. See 4/16 Rotation Principle.

(If I took a crank, rotated him an infinty of times, that obviously would yield an infinity of nonsense. Trust me, it's proven by the proven principle of the proven supremacy of infinity.) How about demonstrating your explanations instead of repeating ad nauseam that there are such and such principles? Kosebamse

The infinity-concept you have stated is invalid, for infinity logically reduces to a finite Cube-state, as proven in the Rational Belief. The 4/16 rotation principle is explained on the page4/16 Rotation Principle, so I want you to read that and respond to the proof it sets forth.

3) "baseless religious beliefs" - Occam's razor does per se not make any assumptions about the metaphysical or religious quality of explanations, so applying it does not favor religious beliefs over others. Furthermore, is an expresion like "baseless religious beliefs" compatible with your idea of an unbiased language?Kosebamse

Yes, because should the religious beliefs have a legitimate basis, then it wouldn't be too difficult for their followers to make it known. But in reality, this isn't going to happen, because the beliefs are obviously baseless and untrue.

That's a circular argumentation and does not prove anything beyond your premises.Kosebamse

As explained in the Time Cube article, Time Cube disproves God. What we are discussing here is whether use of "baseless" is justified. I argue that it is justified, as follows:

• Anyone objecting to the claim that the beliefs are baseless, must hold the contrary belief: that the beliefs do have a legitimate basis.
• But if such a basis does exist, then they should be able to state this basis without too much effort.
• Therefore, given that they have not stated a legitimate basis, I conclude that either they are comfortable with the "baseless" claim, or there really is no basis -- in which case the "baseless" claim is true.

We were talking about what Occams razor is used for. As I explained before, it is a method of handling explanations for phenomena. If you don't demonstrate what theory explains what phenomena, you can't claim to put Occmam's razor to use. If you can't demonstrate in what testable way your timecubism disproves God, any use of Occam's razor is an deception. Kosebamse

So it is justified to use "baseless" (if not, please refute my argument). To test that a single human-self can't exist in more than one corner of Earth, try conducting a phone conversation with yourself over a 1000 km distance, simultaneously existing at each end. Get it broadcast on the news if you can do it, and I will count that as evidence.

To test that your 4-corner head has but a 1-corner face, which is oriented in the "forwards" direction, you can try looking directly north, south, east and west simultaneously. Alternatively, you can try walking north, south, east and west simultaneously. Not possible for you as a 1-corner self, although a 4-corner family-rotation -- mother, father, son, daughter -- will be able to manage it.

It is testable fact that the self is but 1-corner; and it is testable that the universe has a 4-corner totality, see below. Since a self-god would have to be but 1-corner, it could not represent the 4-corner totality, therefore not omniscient/omnipotent as claimed. We thus disprove the omnipotent self-word-god.

Your terminology does not seem to make any sense, so kindly explain what you mean. Kosebamse

See 4 is the Supreme Number of the Universe; this explains the 4-corner-quadrant division. 4-corner is all four of them, and 1-corner is just one. If there is any other terminology you don't understand, please specify it.

"testable that the universe has a 4-corner totality". Would you mind formulating that in terms of generally accepted geometry or physics? Kosebamse

See below, where we are discussing the 4-corner geometry as it applies to Earth's rotation.

I didn't say that Occam's razor favours religious beliefs; rather, it serves to reject unobservable supernatural phenomena, since they are not required to explain reality and are therefore superfluous.

There's a lot about the relation between Occams razor and religion in Occam's razor and no need to discuss it on the Gene Ray article Kosebamse

Yes, but there is no harm in making a brief comment.

It is misleading to use a tool of science outside the limits of its usefulness. Kosebamse

See above; it is within the limits.

It is not. If you talk about science (or what you call science), stick to the point. You are constantly trying to introduce religious ideas while the subject is your alleged explanations of physical phenomena. If you aplly Occam's razor to the idea that time is cubic, the first and foremost result would be that an explanation (timecubism) that does not explain anything better that accepted physics and is more complicated is to be refuted. If you could demonstrate that your ideas explain anything, they would be fit to be scrutinised scientifically, but I have not, neither here nor onthe pages you cite, seen anything resembling an explanation of anything.Kosebamse

However, Time Cube is proven. Without logical proof in support of religious beliefs, they are refuted by the razor of doom. See "Proof" in Talk:Time Cube for the logical/geometric proof, and below for testability.

You are essentially saying that it's proven because you say that it's proven. That's speculative belief, not science. You have still not demonstrated a testable construct in comprehensible terms of physics or geometry. Kosebamse

It's proven because there is proof. For this proof, see "Proof" in Talk:Time Cube, and see below for testability. You also need to respond to the proofs on Cubic Awareness Online.

- Testable predictions. Whatever the benefits of a theory, it is a scientific theory only if it makes testable predictions. Read scientific method for a full explanation. Furthermore, a person who rejects the scientific method itself cannot be considered a scientist because a scientist is someone who accepts that his/her ideas are tested using the scientific method. Simple as that. Kosebamse 10:33, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So then, if relativity had been formulated only after all its predictions had been verified, it would be unscientific. Its scientific value would be decided based on the time at which it was discovered, rather than the its actual content. And furthermore, I imagine that the moment all its predictions have been verified, they will no longer be predictions, and thus Relativity will instantly become unscientific. Every scientist in the world will be forbidden from referring to it; never mind its practical, non-predictive uses, because Jesus said that if you don't worship the arbitrary absolute necessity for predictions he will damn you to hell.

I repeat that you might wish to read scientific method to understand how science works. Your description is quite off the target. If a theory does not make a testable prediction and/or explains phenomena in a testable way, it is not a scientific theory.Kosebamse

If by "explains phenomena in a testable way" you mean that the theory's hypotheses should be based on testable/observable empirical evidence, then you have agreed with me, because while it is necessary for a theory's hypotheses to be testable, it is not necessary for any of them to be predictions. If you want to claim that predictions are necessary, then you should state rational justification rather than mere religious-zealot unsubstantiated-assertions.

If a theory is scientific, it explains phenomena in a testable way and allows predictions to be deduced. There may be a misunderstanding about the use of "predictions" here: prediction is not per se related to future events, but to hypotheses or concepts that are deduced from a theory and are testable. Kosebamse

Then it would be better phrased as "testable hypotheses", since "predictions" generally does refer to a foretelling of future events. There is no justification for placing constraints on the times at which supporting experiments or observations are performed.

So phrase it so.Kosebamse

Certainly a theory requires testable hypotheses, and a means of it gaining credibility is for these hypotheses to be predictions that are subsequently verified. But to say that it must absolutely have predictive hypotheses in order to be accepted, is clearly but nonsensical dogma. I suggest that instead of crusading in support of this dogma just because "everyone believes it" (same with flat-earth a few centuries ago), you try thinking rationally for a change.

Your polemics aside, I maintain that somebody who outright rejects the scientific method (for example by challenging people to disprove his ideas when there is nothing testable in them) cannot be considered a scientist.Kosebamse

I already provided an overview of Cubic testability, which I have now marked as "Overview of testable/observable Cubic hypotheses". You appear to have overlooked this, so I ask that you please now respond to it.

I have not seen anything there that even formally resmbles scientific argumentation. Would you mind citing a single testable concept deduced from timecubism, explaining how it relates to the physical world and demonstrating how it is proven? Kosebamse

I will focus on the first one I listed in "Overview of testable/observable Cubic hypotheses": that everything is cyclical. Let's examine the Earth's rotation. Maybe the Earth is going to stop rotating and the wikipedia server will fly off the edge. No, it keeps rotating. What constraint is regulating this motion? And furthermore, at noon on Tuesday it's in a certain configuration, and at noon on Wednesday the same configuration has been more or less re-attained, despite different configurations having been gone through. Why was that?

Maybe a 1/bajillion coincidence that it keeps doing the same thing for so many years. Alternatively, a 4/16 rotation principle, as proven on the linked page. But we must take into account all possibilities, so you tell me what you think is a possibility.

I am quite happy with classical physics (as well as common sense) to explain that after a full rotation Earth is in a position similar to that 24 hours before. What is there in such a simple phenomenon that makes you assume complicated and nebulous ideas about time?Kosebamse

Common sense proves 4 simultaneous days, as explained in 4/16 rotation principle. But you have raised the possibility of classical physics, so let's examine that. By what process does one verify classical physics' explanation for the cyclicality of Earth's movement?

What cyclicality? A rotating object keeps rotating in the absence of friction or other forces that take kinetic energy away from it. After one rotation, the situation is similar to the situation at start. that's as simple as physics can possibly be and I don't see the need to introduce nebulous and complicated principles that don't explain anything and don't prove anything (except [insert favorite weasel words here] the notorious crankiness of their inventor). Kosebamse

Exactly. The situation at the end is similar to what it was at the start. But in linear time, the object experiences a continuous temporal movement away from the start -- no return. You have stated that the rotating object keeps rotating, but not the constraint that causes it to perenially repeat its movement; so I ask again, how does classical physics explain it, and by what process may one verify its explanation?

If there is no constraint on the future, then it must be a 1/bajillion coincidence that the past keeps recurring. The present moves away from the past, and assuming an infinite straight-line of time, nothing forces it to return. But if the future ultimately is the past, then what has happened in the past dictates what will happen in the future. Take this continuous time-circle, divide it into 4, and position it between 2 static opposites to derive the Time Cube geometry.

So, what's going on. Is it classical physics (if so, explain further), or a 1/bajillion coincidence, or is it NATURE'S HARMONIC SIMULTANEOUS 4-DAY TIME CUBE?

See Inertia, specifically the section on "rotatory inertia". If you can't come to grips with such an overwhelmingly simple concept, all discussion is futile. Happy proclamating, Kosebamse 05:21, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know that classical physics represents it with the concept of inertia. But what actually causes the inertia? Above, I show that infinite rectilinear time requires a 1/bajillion coincidence for inertia, such as Earth's perennial rotation, to occur. Otherwise, it would have to be a time-circle, which leads us to the unrefuted Cubic geometry. I will expect a refutation of my argument if you are going to claim infinite rectilinear time on any basis stronger than a 1/bajillion chance.

If you want you challenge the foundations of Newtonian physics, you need better arguments than these. I won't argue with you any further, see below. Kosebamse 08:26, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect; the arguments are sound, and neither you nor anyone else has refuted them. I am not challenging Newtonian physics, but merely showing that it exists within the parameters of Cubic time, rather than the false evil 1-corner linear-time.

Note to readers: said arguments are not falsifiable, as no experiment can be devised with which to prove (true or false) what has been claimed. The only experiments cited are thought experiments, which in turn refer to other theories and thought experiments of time cubism, and around and around in circles they go. There must be a break, something to be tested in actuality, but this is not so. Guy is a crank. 24.76.102.140 (talk · contribs) 02:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC) (the wp.shawcable.net anon near Vancouver, British Columbia; see also Talk:John Hutchison)

Removing the Dada Engine paragraph

• 02:23, 13 Mar 2005 Kosebamse (reinstate Dada Engine. Why was this deleted?)
• ...
• 13:08, 4 Mar 2005 RJL20 (The Time Cube text generator at elsewhere.org is a markov chain script, not a dada engine creation.)

I removed that section because it's not true. The Dada Engine is cool, and it could be used to write a Time Cube generator, but as far as I know, it hasn't been. The Time Cube generator you linked to is a perl script which uses a markov chain built by parsing Gene Ray's own sites. It doesn't use the Dada Engine. RJL20 23:52, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's hopeless

I would like to note that I'll stop arguing with our esteemed friend 211.28.xxx.xxx. As the discussion above amply demonstrates, the form of his arguments resembles rational discourse (although his style of discussion is highly evasive), but the substance of his ideas is vacuous. I am at a loss as to what motivates him. Either he's a total crackpot, or a polite and highly effective troll, or he pursues some dadaistic attempt at ridiculing Wikipedia/academia/whatnot (-if I had to pick one, I'd vote crackpot). Anyway, I am giving it up now. It is extremely unpleasant and sad to see that the proverbial Internet zealot with infinite time at hand should prevail here, but I am bored and fed up with this. If anybody has the patience to deal with 211.28, good luck. Kosebamse 08:26, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kosebamse, what motivates me is most likely the same ideal that motivated Galileo -- that of rational Truth prevailing over Academic and religious single-corner Word-lies and brainwashing. You are incorrect in deeming Time Cube vacuous, as I have shown it to be quite substantiated in terms of logic, rationality, and empirical observability. I guess the round-earth heliocentric theory would have been similarly considered vacuous several centuries ago.

And no, I don't have infinite time, rather I have the power above God with which Cubic wisdom has energised me. It would be good if you could similarly overcome with rational thought all Academic religious brainwashing and indoctrination that has been imposed upon you, and seek the Ineffable Cubic Truth of the Universe.

I am putting a note on Wikipedia:Requests for comment so that others may look into these disputes. Kosebamse 05:28, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Clearly Kosebamse, Cubehead as he calls himself, and others who follow this idea, seem to suffer from a form of cognitive disroder. He actually believes whole-heartedly that he is indeed a figure like Galilleo who is going to help society. He in fact is quite intelligent, as people with these disorders can be and usually are. It is very hard to treat these people because they will almost never accept there is something wrong with them. Naturally, a sure sign is them insisting the problem is with everyone else who thinks differently from them. This is the same type of behaviour that one sees with Borderline Personlity Disorder. I know about mental illness first hand, because my former wife suffers from borderline personality disorder (BPD). It can be very hard to spot these things, and takes careful prolonged observation. Cubehead is very steadfast and very consistent in his pathological views, and fits well the profile of cognitive disorder. I have inclueded a link to a website about cognitive disorder in the hopes cubehead might come here and follow the link and realise he needs to get help for himself. Problem is, many of these people (like BPD sufferers) can function quite adequately in society, and thus never get diagnosed. If you think Cubehead is doing this for any reason other than abnormal perceptive processing, then you will drive yourself mad trying to understand why he is so obsessed. Actually the net is probably a medium in which mental disorders like this manifest, since it gives a voice to their delsuions. A typical website on cognitive disorder is Cognition Disorder- EWM.

Just to add, look no further than the Wikepedia's on page on delusion: Delusion. -EWM

203.173.31.155 (talk · contribs) (the dyn.iinet.net.au anon in Perth)

Yes, I'm sure that you view rational thought as a pathological disorder. You would view false religious beliefs as something that everyone should accept, however. You must seek the proven Truth of Time Cube.

136.186.1.119 (talk · contribs) (Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia)

Schizophrenia

The Schizophrenia article lists him as schizophrenic, but this article seems to have no mention of it. Is this true, confirmed, or simply suspected? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:59, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

On his Time Cube webpage he states that "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." So in view of traditional science (the "educated stupid" in his view), which I presume is the view of the Schizophrenia article, he is probably schizophrenic (at least if we are to believe him). Woseph 10:44, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

Dr. Gene Ray, Cubic

King Mob removed the statement "Dr. Gene Ray, Cubic" due to lack of references where Ray uses this combination of titles. I reverted the edit since I have sources where the title is used. In "Code of the Pyramids", there's a page (looks like a title page) reading:

CUBIC CREATION

versus
Human Word Animal
Educated Singularity
STUPID
by
Dr. Gene Ray, Cubic

and below this "HUMAN HAS 4 CORNER FACES, BUT ONLY ONE AT ANY TIME" in Ray's own handwriting. If he didn't like "Dr. Gene Ray, Cubic", I'm sure he would have changed it.

Also, the text at the back of Georgia Tech DVD is signed "Dr. Gene Ray, Cubic and Wisest Human".

"Dr. Gene Ray", "Gene Ray, Cubic" or "Cubic" Gene Ray appears to be more common though, so perhaps we should rewrite it anyhow? (If we really care that much about his titles ...)

-- Woseph 20:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, If he signed the DVD "Dr.Gene Ray, Cubic" he probably prefers that personally. However he is not using that title at www.timecube.com or any of his satelite sites (I think). Personally I refer to him as "Dr.Gene Ray" but I dont know about other peoples prefrences. And what is "Code of the pyramids" anyting you could link to?

King Mob 00:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

He does use several different titles. As I mentioned above, the most correct thing would be to list some of his titles and state that he in general uses some combination of them. (To me, the exact combination "Dr. Gene Ray, Cubic" isn't that important, but both "Dr. Gene Ray" and "cubic" are, so we should mention both of them, even if not together.) Perhaps we should just call/email him and ask what he prefers?

"Code of the Pyramids" is included as a PDF on the "Mother of all DVDs" (sold at [2] for $12). The book includes some handwritten pages/comments, a 96 point "Agenda" (looks like it might be a table of contents for a future book), a large collection of flyers, printouts from TimeCube.com, and some emails. I presume it's copyrighted, so I can't upload it, but the DVD is a bargain...

-- Woseph 14:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

That photo of Ray talking at MIT

I don't want to stir up a hornet's nest, but the photo looks suspiciously like a photoshopped fake. Ray simply doesn't look right against the background. Any comment anyone? Robinh 19:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

• It is photoshopped (or rather it was enhanced using Adobe® Photoshop® software), as the upload summary suggests, but AFAICT only to highlight Gene Ray and remove a head. Compare yourself with the video, about 4 minutes in. In either case, we should try asking the photographer to release at least a small version of the original as public domain or GFDL, or else replace it with a screen-cap from the video (which will look a lot worse). -- Woseph 21:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I doubt the necessity of reversing colour correction, reversing the highlighting that focuses the subject nicely, and reinstating the obtrusive top of some guy's shaved head. Let's allow the Gimped version to remain.

Speculative claims

i have repeatedly tested the timecube both knowledge and facts gene ray's last bit of knowledge has only backfired because he made vast incorrections during the disturbing creation of the timecube before anyone notices he will claim to love god yah i know unexpected by a genius unless he writes this all down on little notepads and the timecube has been wrong ever since it's creation and free arguments been posted online i have my own philosophy but i don't know how to make a website quite yet but when i do you will expect my work to be well made because i have backup information and a well amount of people in soceity able to help me which i have earned they're respect so within two or three years i might have a better peice of work than that made from the timecube for contact email me at quietsilentfree@yahoo.com so we can finish this conversation for and or against gene ray thanks.--65.34.2.93 05:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC) (the tampabay.res.rr.com anon)

Matt Kestner he is making money the same way christians do through selfish-belief and his latest project has backfired many times prooving him the liar and etc gene ray is a good inventor but he forgot to design his project and support it with rational details and re-made main websites that would give him a swell advantage in soceity.

Anon Deletions

The following snippets were deleted from the article:

According to Gene's family, no psychiatric evaluation will take place; Gene lives on his own and functions well, both socially and otherwise. He appears able to make a clear distinction between his theory and his everyday life.

Meanwhile, director Brett Hanover of the Memphis-based Chapel Films was working on the film Above God, an in depth biopic of Gene Ray. The movie was completed in the spring of 2005. The film is seen by most as compassionate and moving, though Ray himself dislikes it. This is most likely because 'Above God' is (though not critical or mocking) a rather unbiased look at Gene Ray and his theory. The film has won two awards, Best Documentary Short at The Atlanta Underground Film Festival, and Best Documentary at Indie Memphis Film Festival. Due to Gene's sentiments, no video release is planned. [3].

and

• • "Above God", documentary on Gene Ray.

by User:24.92.139.189. Similar deletions by same anon were made on Time Cube. Is the documentary notable enough to be included? I have asked the anon to justify their edits. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 22:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Explaination from Brett Hanover: Gene felt that this information, which I added as a defense of his character, is negative. He also has been threatening legal action in an attempt to supress the documentary. Due to his legal threats, I have done as he requested and removed this material and my own website. Should we reach an agreement, this information could be reinstated. Otherwise, I ask that it be kept out of the article. Thanks, Brett Hanover

24.92.139.189 (talk · contribs) (the central.biz.rr.com anon near Memphis, TN)

Gene Ray Responds to Wikipedia

Due to the the incident involving the inclusion of the film "Above God" in this article (as well as other content Gene dislikes), he has posted the following on timecube.com:

"Wikipedia allowing the educated stupid to evaluate the 4 simultaneous 24 hr. days within a single rotation of Earth, equates allowing atheist to proof-read the bible. Dr. Gene Ray --- is the only authoritative Time Cube expert, at www.timecube.com.

Dr. Gene Ray offers Wikipedia $10,000.00 to disprove math that 1 rotation of 4 Earth quadrants within the 4 quarter Harmonic Time Cube does create 4 simultaneous 24 hr. days. Both Americans & Wikipedia are evil to deny or ignore Cubic Creation. Is Wikipedia a Singularity Brotherhood controlled Trojan Horse indoctrination - that edits Time Cube to a negative view? Who edits the Time Cube on Wikipedia? Will I get a reply or will the Wisest Human just be ignored until silenced by death? "

Should this be included in the article?

24.92.139.189 (talk · contribs) (the central.biz.rr.com near Memphis, TN)

It's already included in the Time Cube article, but perhaps it could be included here too. Up to you.

211.28.7.201 (talk · contribs) (the dialup.optusnet.com.au anon in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia)

It should be included here. Wait, don't aethiests edit the bible anyway? (It's not that the church is going to even care, because they're not going to announce acceptance of the changes.)

Definitions of reoccuring words

I'd like to throw out some definitions of words that 211.28 uses as the main words to describe his opinions.

Logic

1.The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.

a. A system of reasoning: Aristotle's logic.

b. A mode of reasoning: By that logic, we should sell the company tomorrow.

c. The formal, guiding principles of a discipline, school, or science.

3.Valid reasoning: Your paper lacks the logic to prove your thesis.

4.The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events: There's a certain logic to the motion of rush-hour traffic.

5.Computer Science.

The nonarithmetic operations performed by a computer, such as sorting, comparing, and matching, that involve yes-no decisions. Computer circuitry. Graphic representation of computer circuitry.

Rationality

1.The quality or condition of being rational.

2.A rational belief or practice.

Ineffable

1.Incapable of being expressed; indescribable or unutterable. See Synonyms at unspeakable.

2.Not to be uttered; taboo: the ineffable name of God.

Nice guy

He does seem like a nice guy though. Not someone you'd want to have as your grandfather but a cool great uncle type of deal. Lots of old people hate gays. He's just open. 69.251.62.140 (Talk) (talk · contribs) (the md.comcast.net anon near Bel Air, MD)

All definitions are directly quoted from dictionary.com.

Also, just so you know Cubehead, observability (it was stated in the It's Hopeless section of this page) is not a word. Nice attempt.--Duckmurderer 04:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Logic is synonymous with rationality. Time Cube is ineffable because it cannot be perfectly expressed in words.

"Observability", despite your nice attempt at word-pedantry, is indeed a self-evident variation of an existing word.

136.186.1.119 (talk · contribs) (Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia)