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 becausewe 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".

First bold part: k gr8 m8 i luv gr8ps but as it turns out,Here we see the function y = x2. TheAcademian 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'srectify this evil convention2)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.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.The impact is that we've added its reflection about the x-axis. Academians would represent this graph as y = ±x2.

Bold parts = noted below again

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 representsAnd, 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 performa few manipulations(4)on i.nothing.It doesn't even makesense.

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.

HAHAHAHA NO STUPID. You can completely do that.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!".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.

First sentence - lern gramar and try to keep the religion out of theTime 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.8math 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.

## Bookmarks