Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Timecube!

  1. Aug 27, 2004 #1
    http://www.timecube.com/

    There's no need to put it in the debunking forum. No point. I put it here because it's good for a laugh. Enjoy the read. :)
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 27, 2004 #2
    Oh, God, that's hilarious! :rofl: :rofl:

    How many times did he/she say "Dumbass stupid students" and "evil students"? :rofl:


    I think they have a few problems... :yuck: :uhh: :bugeye:
     
  4. Aug 27, 2004 #3
    The guy was invited to a university some time ago, and delivered his theory to some students. Unfortunately the "educated stupid" students pointed out all the holes in it, and he was upset.
     
  5. Aug 27, 2004 #4
  6. Aug 27, 2004 #5

    jimmy p

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Hmmm I wonder if anyone has emailed him to say that cubes dont have 4 corners...
     
  7. Aug 27, 2004 #6
    Jimmy, you're not supposed to point out the obvious stuff. It's against the crackpot rules.
     
  8. Aug 27, 2004 #7

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    LOL! Amidst all that ranting about his four-cornered cube, he did state that a psychiatrist had diagnosed him as schizophrenic as another example of the educated stupid. I take it he has refused to take his medication.
     
  9. Aug 28, 2004 #8

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Nature's Time is Cubic and perpetual.
    Linear Time is wrong and suicidal.

    How can you not like that ? :wink: :biggrin:

    Why look for a correct theory, when you can have a snazzy one ?? :rofl:
     
  10. Aug 28, 2004 #9

    jcsd

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Defintely one of the best sites on the web. it's been around for several years yet it constantly changes as more four-cornered cubic wisdom is added.
     
  11. Aug 28, 2004 #10

    jcsd

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    ..........duh! You're stupid and evil. :rolleyes:
     
  12. Aug 28, 2004 #11

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    How to be a crackpot:

    1) Pick a piece of reputable science that seems beautiful to you, preferably one at a high-school or earlier level (since, after all, you didn't take any collegiate science courses). Bonus points are assigned for choosing a piece that has been proven wrong and abandoned by modern science. The Bohr "solar-system" model of the atom, for example, will do nicely.

    2) Misunderstand some fundamental point of your pet scientific principle.

    3) Read about your pet scientific principle in a variety of $5.95 paperbacks sold at the front counter of the newsstands in malls.

    4) Misunderstand even the qualitative descriptions and word-bound "math" provided therein.

    5) Use that one piece of trivial scientific theory to explain everything in the observable universe. Yes, the beginning of time, the size of the Universe, black holes, and all the rest. Ascribe some silly properties to things that don't actually have those properties; for example, talk about the "speed" of electrons, and use the speed to explain the beginning of time. Don't be greedy and try to involve any other bits of real science; your theory has to have a definite focal point. What better focal point is there for an all-encompassing theory of the Universe than that piece of beautiful outdated science you learned in ninth grade?

    6) Forego all use of math, since math is hard (you abandoned real science for the same reason, remember?). Besides, you've already convinced yourself that no one would ever order a Universe so complex that you'd actually need something as hard as math to describe it. If you do attempt to use math, make sure it's entirely unrelated to your thesis. Make use of the prettiest symbols as often as possible -- if say, you like the looks of the symbol for an integral over a closed region, just make all of your integrals over a closed region. Since you're making up dimensions, quantities, and symbols anyway, you can do what you like. Just think of the symbols as window dressing.

    7) Make up at least a dozen new words. Even better, reuse the same words scientists use, but give them new, entirely different, meanings. Be careful not to give them precise definitions, though; leave a little wiggle room. Using your new lexicon, you can escape the barrage of criticism you'll receive later by revealing "your" definitions piecemeal. This bait-and-switch tactic soon wears out any would-be critics; when they give up on you, pat yourself on the back for having created an impregnable fortress of a theory.

    8) Write at least one sentence that uses all of your new words at the same time. Make liberal use of nested prepositional phrases and passive voice. Since you don't actually understand science, you read a science book and see nothing but meaningless jumbles of words grouped into complicated sentence structures; it makes sense that you should emulate this as best you can. This "topic sentence" also becomes a great tool for weeding out your crackpot fellows from the background noise of reputable scientists. Anyone who reads the sentence "The force of magnetism is the result of a torque generated by the energy vortex Shadows associate with electromagnet energy, which causes a 'tilting' of the W axis of the fourth spatial dimensions." and actually claims to "get it" is immediately identified as a colleague.

    9) Do your best to ignore every shred of the contrary evidence collected by hundreds of thousands of independent scientists, in millions of experiments, over the span of hundreds of years. There are a variety of ways in which you can dodge the evidence:

    - You can simply ignore it.
    - You can explain that all of those scientists, helplessly unarmed by having not yet experienced the epiphany embodied in your theory, simply did the wrong experiments, or intepreted the experimental results incorrectly.
    - You can refer to the International Scientific Conspiracy, who has encased all of the real scientists (who would immediately give you the Nobel prize for your discovery) in concrete, leaving only the riff-raff underachievers to do such poor experiments.
    - You can make use of the paranoid idea that the only experiments which are conclusive are those which involve the human senses directly. If you can't feel it heating up with your hand, or see it glowing with your eye, then you haven't done a real experiment. Why should anyone, especially you, believe anything that a machine says? After all, the International Scientific Conspiracy certainly has a few well-stocked machine shops.

    10) Whenever someone criticizes you, be sure to try to make him feel guilty for being so closed-minded that the only thing he'll accept is cold, hard reality. Tell him that scientists like Einstein invented new branches of physics only by being as open-minded as you are; ignore the fact that the assertion is not true (or invoke the International Scientific Conspiracy).

    11) Submit your paper to reputable scientific authorities, like PRL and Nature. When no one bothers to even respond with a rejection letter, come to one of two possible conclusions: either that modern science has no rebuttal to your theory, you have shattered their collective scientific ego with your brilliance, and they have chosen not to respond because they are too proud to admit defeat; or that the International Scientific Conspiracy has immediately destroyed your paper because you got too close to the Truth. Either way, your theory is actually strengthened by the silent dismissal, and that's all that really matters anyway. Now you can tell anyone who cares to listen that modern science cannot rebut your theory, so it must be right. You can go a step further, become proactive, and actually solicit rebuttals directly from individuals in the reputable scientific community. When none of these scientists is willing to waste his time trying to teach you tenth-grade physics, you can proudly announce that science cannot disprove your theory.

    12) Misunderstand the essence of the scientific method. Forget the fact that theories must provide falsifiable or directly verifiable predictions to be taken seriously. Since your theory is a crackpot theory, it is incapable of providing directly verifiable predictions. You were careful to avoid making your definitions precise, weren't you? The same wiggle room that allows your theory to explain just about any experimental result is also responsible for preventing your theory from making any concrete predictions of anything. It doesn't matter what number pops out of the particle physicist's machine; your theory doesn't even use math, so any number you'd like can be explained by it. Your theory is immune to the scientific method, and that makes it better. Your theory cannot be proven wrong, so it must be right.

    13) Make up a name for your theory. Reputable scientific theories have wacky-sounding names like "Quantum Electrodynamics" and "Special Relativity," so yours should, too. Use latin whenever possible, since latin sounds scientific; nevermind that you don't understand how to conjugate latin verbs. "Genesis Continuous," "Shadows," and "Time Cube" are all excellent names. Bonus points are assigned for crackpots who manage to bastardize the names of reputable theories. For example, "God Almighty's Grand Unified Theory" is at least ten times as good as "Shadows," because it provokes fear and awe while simultaneously including a catch-phrase that has recently attracted a great deal of reputable attention.

    14) Found your very own organization dedicated to the research of your new theory of everything. It doesn't matter if some of your compatriots are actually 18th century French poets, are imaginary, or are canines -- all that matters is that you have an organization. Give it a good official-sounding name. You've surely heard of Caltech and MIT; using the "Institute of Technology" moniker will definitely make everyone take you seriously for a change. The "Offapit Institute of Technology," for example, is repsonsible for "God Almighty's Grand Unified Theory," which is poised to change the way all of humankind thinks about science, if only the editors of PRL will give up their hubris and accept its superiority.....

    - Warren
     
  13. Aug 28, 2004 #12

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Chroot ! This is just your way of suppressing all of us real thinkers here. Just because you're a mentor, you think you can go about trampling all over our "unconventional ideas". I'm sure you've never read any of Kaku's works....have you ? - I challenge you !

    Just because your rigidly conditioned mind can not fathom the beauty of Energy Vortex Shadows, doesn't mean they don't exist !! And if they didn't exist, can you explain why atoms are not getting continuously electrocuted by the electrons that travel at nearly the speed of light, often tunneling through the nucleus ? You can't !!!

    Do you know that QFT and QM, and even QED have no good explanation for 'mass' ? They just adjust parameters as they see fit, to make things look nice. And you call that science - shame on you !!!! If you even bothered to read what I've proposed, you'd see that the Mass Gap in Yang-Mills actually vanishes. But, you won't accept that, because it doesn't fit into your narrow definition of science. Bah !!!!!

    I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps in the ignorance of the scientific theory that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a pencil and stand opposed !!!!!!

    :wink:
     
  14. Aug 28, 2004 #13

    jcsd

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    That's just the kind of thing tht someone who has been educated stupid (i.e. an evil acdaemian) would say. Cublessness is a major problem in the American education system as educators refuse to recognize nature's harmonic simulatenous 4-day cube.

    I've actually sent an e-mail to Gene Ray and for my troubles was called a dumbass, but I was only on the first corner of the timecube at the time.
     
  15. Aug 28, 2004 #14

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Wow !! What did you say ? :eek:
     
  16. Aug 29, 2004 #15
    Is that not an oxymoron? :eek:
     
  17. Aug 29, 2004 #16

    jcsd

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I suggested that a 4-cube, may of improved his model. But's he's quite adammant that nature's harmonic cube has only 4 corners.
     
  18. Aug 29, 2004 #17
    Ignore those rules Chroot listed. He's just jealous because Gene Ray is the greatest thinker ever, the wisest human ever. It says so right there on the webpage.
     
  19. Aug 29, 2004 #18

    jimmy p

    User Avatar
    Gold Member


    I think Gene Ray needs some oxygen to his brain to stop him being a moron.
     
  20. Nov 21, 2004 #19
  21. Nov 21, 2004 #20

    matthyaouw

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I'm not even sure I want to ask what that means, but it sounds reasonably filthy...

    A lot of his sentences remind me of what happens when I type a phrase into the Babelfish translator, take it through about 8 languages and then back to English, just to see how much coherency and sense it looses.
     
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2004
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?