Talk:Time Cube

Talk:Time Cube

Talk:Time Cube

Former featured article candidateTime Cube is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 24, 2004Articles for deletionKept
February 3, 2004Articles for deletionKept
March 30, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 26, 2005Articles for deletionKept
October 26, 2006Articles for deletionKept
October 29, 2008Articles for deletionKept
March 16, 2010Articles for deletionKept
July 29, 2010Articles for deletionKept
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Agreement

It appears that there is one statement by this Ray guy that everyone can agree on: "Ray asserted repeatedly and variously that the academic world had not taken Time Cube seriously." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots22:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Diagnosis with schizophrenia?

> In one paragraph, Ray claimed that his own wisdom "so antiquates known knowledge" that a psychiatrist examining his behavior diagnosed him with schizophrenia.

The paragraph cited:

> 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.

But the quote doesn't clearly claim that anyone "diagnosed" him. It could be read that way, but the use of the present tense suggests a hypothetical psychiatrist who Ray would expect to be diagnosed by. 83.105.3.121 (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Religious beliefs?

We shouldn't put that the Time Cube Theory is a religious belief? It's a theory that has Mama (Primary God) and 4 entities (Jesus, Socrates, Einstein and Clinton) as, arguably, divine beings. (From what I understood.) So it shouldn't be considered Pseudo-Cientific Theory / Religous Beliefs? João L. Paiter (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

MIT talk

Note that the information provided about this talk is inaccurate. I was there, and several of my fellow students tried to disprove him, one even bringing a physical model of some sort as a prop to support his explanation. Since Ray's theory isn't based on fact or logic, however, he declared that no one had successfully disproved his theory. I have no idea how to fix this in the article as I know of no supporting source we can cite that says so.

"Word animal" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Word animal has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 26 § Word animal until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:28, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.