We have all seen the Time Cube website http://www.timecube.com - it is the website where it says there are 4 simultaneous days in a single rotation of Earth. But did you see the unofficial Cubic site, the one that has a lot of information on it?...

There it is, check it out, "Cubic Awareness Online" or CubicAO for short. Even the concept-map positioned prominently on its homepage gives you a good idea of the overall complexity of the site.

Yeah it really grabbed my eye with its colourful graphics, and there is many hours' worth of reading material on there for those so inclined...

There is some rational stuff there, but it is lost in a sea of pointless references to to corners/squares/cubes, shameless self promotion, and promises of forbidden knowledge.

Also promises of righteous slaughter of nonbelievers. I have significant issues with that.

>>3

I second that.

Tons of senseless stuff:

In the "Time Cube Proof" section there are three kinds of proof ( Axiomatic, Epistemological, and "Scientific") enlisted in 64 cases. 90% of them are based on previous ones, like these:

>CASE 11

>To represent rotation, we take, from CASE 5, a static linear >duality, and from CASE 9, a 4-corner-quadrant division...

>CASE 21

>From CASE 16, infinity is disproven. This means that the >particle described in CASE 20 cannot accelerate infinitely. >That is to say, it must have a finite maximum speed.

>CASE 58

>From empirical inference: between any two of the four >emotional states from CASE 57, a transition is able to occur.

>>> To be continued

>>>Continue

http://www.cubicao.tk/proof.html

Axiomatic, Epistemological, and "Scientific" are just categories, all those 64 cases are pratically based on this one

big statement:

>CASE 1

>A singularity, or single point, is a zero point. It represents >nonexistence. Let us, however, assume that if we take several >of these points, we will be able to move them around and >interlink or unlink them.

can you call this a proof?

It's a standalone axiom that leads to a whole load of geometric games and pseudo-scientific deductions, but with one thing in common: they're totally useless. While what comes from math axioms is useful (the whole science is based on them in a way), this one only leads to nothing.

Even if we want to analyze the basis of this axiom... we'll see that it has a keyword: nonexistence. So basically he has defined a single point ( called zero point!!! which should be a logic contraddiction itself btw) that represents "nonexistence", then he defined this operation of interlinking and unlinking, and starts linking "nonexistances", and "moving them around" (without even bothering about defining this "moving" operation);

so in the end, from a logic point of view, he's actually linking nothing...and spinning it around.

Since these are the basis of the whole Theory we can easily say that Time Cube is an inconsistent and fallacious fantasy.

Obviously you dont need this whole thinking to understand that it's a total bullshit from the beginning...

Gene Ray: a less ambitious L. Ron Hubbard