Hello and welcome to our community! Is this your first visit?
Register
Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. #1
    Guest

    Time cube math (omgwtf)

    Basically this is me denouncing Gene Ray's Amazing Second Grade Math Wizard Power, in an insult-edutaining way. Gene Ray is the author of Time Cube, either a "religion", a "made up science-math thing", or a "drug trip gone awry". It makes no sense and the mathematics are hokey as crap. Today, for your enjoyment, I'll be denouncing those previously mentioned math skills, with a little bit of insult thrown in. And feel free to post critiques on "time cube" and if you think it's crap (yes) or if you think it's real (you're nuts/very gullible). And sorry fot the unorganization of it, it's 4 am. and I'm sorta delusional from trying to read the thing/type stuff about it

    We'll be dealing with this "sister site" of time cube, as I'd call it, and showing what's crap, a remarkably large list of items.



    Okay, first of all I'mma provide some links. Keep these in mind. First is just so you can get ideas of what this is about.

    http://www.timecube.com <- the site of "time cube", some idea thing made up by Gene Ray the self-proclaimed arbitrator of truth. Basically this is where he spwes his random idea vomits in random text fonts and sizes, usually annoying ones. There's like no organization so just scroll a bit and read some of it.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube <- wiki regarding site, better overview than the site itself
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Time_Cube <interesting archive of discussions, not necessary to visit
    http://atrocities.primaryerror.net/timecube.html <- basically for the funny HOLY CRAP THERE'S SWEARING SO WATCH OUT.

    More important linkies:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Time_Cube/Archive <- what I'm getting at is here, 1/3 of the way down the page under a bold heading titled "Discussion recorded for posterity:" - that's where I start explanation.
    http://www.cubicao.tk/stupidevil1.html - what I'm "explaining" aka. making the author look like a math douch.


    Okay, so regarding the wiki discussion thing, if you can find it. That's basically where I picked up on something to make fun of. Basically I'm going to be going over the final link (the math site) and make fun of/debunk it. So, here we goes.


    ---

    Starting at the top. I dunno where they assume the first paragraph but they really pulled that one out of somewhere. Multiplication is totally irrelevant to "opposites" of numbers; "opposites" are just distances from zero on the number line, and multiplication is a scalar - 2 dimensional aka. can't ever be compared to a number line.

    So then we have some sort of graph. Sorta looks right, but it has some sort of totally unecessary blur fill on it.

    But then all of a sudden, HOLY CRAP! We have the power to suddenly alter function graphs because we don't think they're like that. You wacky tchotchke you. (using that word right?) Seriously, read that over carefully, with boldface in places that are "important".
    Here we see the function y = x2. The Academian convention of the square of a negative number being positive(1) is represented in the graph by the fact that there are only positive "y" (+y) values in the negative "x" (-x) region of the graph.

    Let's rectify this evil convention2)
    First bold part: k gr8 m8 i luv gr8ps but as it turns out, you usually need to provide some sort of ""proof"" or ""evidence"" or ""drug test"" before you can attempt to debunk established mathematics.
    Second bold part: Obvious bias. Omfg it's evil becuz it r haev negatev squar!! I dunno how this guy even got through algebra 1 with that sort of thinking, he must have gotten F's on all of his tests. Again. proof (of math, or not using drugs), is usually helpful in something like that.

    Kay, so now we have a funny paragraph that says, in a bias, that we've rectified a bias. Way to go doing not logical stuff without any proof or argument again.

    Next thing I dunno because I'm not clear on what a derivative is. If you ask me, that looks a heckalot like |x| = y, and I have no idea how that fits in with their imaginary function, at all.

    Then we have a graph that appears to have a large X on it. Again, absolutely no reason or proof that you can suddenly add an x-reflection part to a derivative function. Furthermore, it's not even a function now because it fails the vertical line test. Way to go, bud, minus another twenty.

    Then we turn the x graph into something I don't really have a name for. This is the wackiest of them all.
    The impact is that we've added its reflection about the x-axis. Academians would represent this graph as y = x2.
    Sooooo. . . what you're saying is we're not even using functions at all now. So basically, the groundless claims have now esploded in some sort of paradox with like 8 things that aren't right. It really dissolves right around here, which is okay because then they change subject.


    Bold parts = noted below again
    And, in fact, this final graph represents the principle of opposites in that it's the same shape when flipped in the x-axis, and the same shape when flipped in the y-axis. So, it rightfully represents positive and negative as equal opposites.(1)

    Let's now think about square roots. According to Academia, the square root of +1 is 1. So, by the principle of opposites,(2) the square root of -1 should also be 1.

    But since Academians believe that negative squares don't exist, they have to introduce an imaginary number. They call it i and define it as i2 = 1.(3)

    Let's use Academian mathematics to perform a few manipulations(4) on i.
    First bold part - okay, represents what now? Are we talking math or that not having a drug test before writing that web page thing. That represents nothing. It doesn't even make sense.
    Second bold - Wait, so now your made-up thingy is now a principle? Hardly. Bullcrap from here on out again.
    Third bold - wait a sec. Now this really has me. The stupid doesn't even know what "i" is. As it turns out, i2 = -1, ya stupid, get your consistency in there.
    Fourth bold - well, you know what this means. More made-up math using incorrect stuff.


    Okay, now to "perform a few manipulations on" their image/explanation.

    Too bad. You fail eight-grade math, stupid-o. Think about it. Replace "i" with "2" and try that. Does root 2 times root 2 equal 2? I don't think so. It equals 2 roots of 2. Always. Indisputable.

    This next paragraph should make anyone who knows about using " i " rofl all over the lmao.
    Consider this: if you can say x2 = 4 and convert that to x = sqrt(4), then there's no reason why you can't also take the definition i2 = -1, and convert it to i = sqrt(-1), right?

    Academians say "Wrong!", and they try to get around it by imposing an arbitrary limit. When presented with i = sqrt(-1) a direct consequence of the definition i2 = -1 they say "You can't do that!". Why? "You just can't!".
    HAHAHAHA NO STUPID. You can completely do that. i does equal root of -1 and I've never heard anyone, not a single teacher, ever say anything against that fact. This right here shows that the person who wrote this doesn't have a drop of math background in them. Seriously, then they even have the nerve to make fun of mathematicians in the next image when they're not even right.


    I'll now to "perform a few manipulations" on the mathematician thing.

    oops, my hand slipped on this gun which accidentally shot you 5 times in the head because you're stupid. (I just had to do it, sorry =P)

    And another image manip.

    At least his stupid is consistent. But it still doesn't make that correct. Multiplying root x still makes 2 roots x, and there's nothing imaginary math can do about it.

    Then we have a last paragraph of some crap dealing with the imaginary crap, and then we have the Word of Gene Ray the Awsmoe Guy of Knowing Stuff at the bottom. It's clearly an insult at the reader and totally uncecessary.

    I've "performed a few manipulations" to make it into a font size that fits on a computer monitor.
    Time Cube debunks god lies.1 Evil people deny Time Cube.2 Educators are flat-out liars.3 Evil media hides Time Cube.4 -1 x -1=+1 is stupid and evil.5 Word worship equates to evil.6 Bible induces a barren Earth.7 Evil 1 day Bible kills children.8
    First sentence - lern gramar and try to keep the religion out of the math explanation page.
    2nd s. - so, you're basically trying to guilt us into believeing the stupid guy because we're "evil" because we don't believe what you do. So wrong in so many many ways.
    3rd s. - take it to the school board, Zeppo.
    4th s. - . . . who's hiding it? Just because you made it up doesn't mean you should get that mountain of attention that you're obviously craving so much. Zing.
    5th s. - no actually, you're stupid and retarded, and stupid. Maybe my little sister could teach you how to multiply.
    6th s. - . . . now wait a minute here. . . you're teaching through words. Really huge, randomly colored and italicized, words. I dunno if this is actually a double meaning or a subliminal message, but come on, that's prettty out there.
    7th s. - Dunno, Earth looks pretty un-barren to me. Why don't you try picking on some other religion, like buddhism or judaism or zarathustra or something, you might get luckier with your claims. But I doubt it.
    8th s. - wait a sec, I'm still holding my sides. The only time a bible killed a kid was that one time in France when that guy dropped the bible on some kid from a tall building, and his skull was crushed. And I made that one up.



    So all in all, time cube and its matheys (is? are?) crazy. In my overly long opinion at least. Any thoughts?
    (the top-middle of the wiki page has some good points to denounce.)

    And in retrospect, sorry about the very off-topic from philosophy areas of this, but when you're talking about something so utterly ridiculous, it's hard not to take some jabs at it.

  2. #2
    Guest
    stdp but I had to add my email to Gene Ray himself that I'm sending right now. ( oray612959@earthlink.net , it's on his site)

    Mr. Gene Ray;

    Several things about your time cube theory/religion/whatever it is. (I can't figure it out from reading your site, because it mostly went on calling me stupid and insulting humanity and the education system instead of actually explaining whatever time cube is supposed to be)


    So here's the questions which I challenge you to answer in a way that my "educated stupid" mind could understand:


    1. "-1 x -1 = +1 is Evil math,
    as +1 and -1 are antipodes
    equating a zero existence. "

    http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3 ... tnG=Search

    So where are -1 and +1 on earth? Use google earth and give me a link to the search please.



    2. "6 side Cube is Evil math,
    ignoring its top & bottom. "

    Okay, I'm fairly certain that a cube (a REAL one, not a "time cube") has exactly six sides when you count the front and back, left and right, and also the top and bottom. And I definitely didn't forget the top and bottom when I counted, I checked twice just in case and there's definitely just six sides



    3. "Schools teach religious evil.
    Denying debate proves this."

    Wait a sec. Schools CANNOT teach religions (not counting religious schools, at least). Explain how exactly that works there.



    4. "There is proof that 3 dimensional
    math is erroneous, and that linear
    Time is actually of a Cubic nature.
    Ignoring Cubium indicts you evil. "

    So. . . where's. . . that proof then. . .

    "There is --->proof<-- "

    All I see is your opinion on something that isn't even clear, hence what I said at the start. (you don't even explain what all of these vertices and sides and cubes are, probably because I wouldn't understandthem because I'm too "educated stupid". But then why put the site up anyways if no one can understand it?)



    5. The explanation thing again. All I see are a bunch of diagrams on page 2, with remarkably hard-to-read labels and text that somehow "prove" stuff even though there's NO explanation of them.



    6. http://timecube.com/index16.html
    I'm trying to read this and understand it, and here's what I get.
    - diagram with stuff that doesn't make sense (you probably couldn't make it make sense anyways because everyone is too "educated stupid" to get it anyway)
    - I'm educated stupid or something
    - There's a bunch of sides and vertices of imaginary, invisible objects, and I have 4 corners
    - I'm "so stupid"
    - then a bunch of stuff happens with people and grandparents and ranting
    - I'm "stupid and evil"

    Is this whole thing just a metaphor or do you actually expect me to buy it given basically no interpretation, save that I'm "stupid and evil" ?



    Lastly, 7. If education is so stupid and evil, well, let's make a chart:
    - people are educated stupid
    - stupid people use stupid evil to nvent internet and stupidly educate other people on how to use it
    - more people become stupid and make HTML coding language
    - stupid people write books/make pages/educate others (stupidly and evilly) about the evil methods of coding a webpage
    - Gene Ray learns evil stupid method of HTML coding from evil teacher/evil book/evil site created by stupid educator?

    Something doesn't add up right there.


    Sorry to say, but your explanations are flawed in ways that are so horribly skewed that I'm not sure you are even consistent with them, and they're just made up as you go.

    All I'm asking for is answers to those questions (ones that I can understand, because I'm educated stupid and can't understand it currently), and maybe some sort of clearer explanation of this time cube thingy?

    regards,

    -sd

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Campaigning against Pies
    Posts
    142
    Lol, he's probroubly going to invite you to a conference and brain wash you to follow his evil time-cube existance...

    It's all very complicated, but from the (small) parts I understand i think you've got him nailed, He may just call you an evil educator and run away though...
    Come over to the Dark Side, we have candy

    OMG i actually have a thread, meaning I've actually done something! (Not updated in years... Pester me until I make something new):
    http://forums.darkdemon.org/viewtopic.php?t=6108


 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •