Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Race Cube

M0nK3Y
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2016 7:05:00 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
[img]http://i.imgur.com...[/img]
When observing a cube, at any given time we can select 4 side on the same cubic central plane, and 2 side remain unselected.

Therefore, If we sense a cube, there are 4 side and 2 polar.
M0nK3Y
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2016 5:12:11 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
A cubic central plane is a single dimension of which 4 sides are a part of (as depicted by the inner squares of the cube in the diagram). Cubic central planes exist, all sensory data is aligned side by polar; if I want to perceive you upside down, I must first rotate my body to align my top-most with your bottom-most.

4 sides of a cube will be on a cubic central plane.

We can conceptualize a second set of 4 sides to be on another cubic central plane, but this would include 2 sides that were already part of the first set of 4 sides, abstracting the cube - assuming more than one observer.

Therefore, when we group 4 sides on the basis that they are of the same cubic central plane (a legitimate concept), 2 sides remain not of the same cubic central plane.

A cube has 4 side and 2 polar.
Cobalt
Posts: 991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 11:59:20 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/19/2016 5:12:11 PM, M0nK3Y wrote:

This is my interpretation of what you're trying to say, and I'd like to know if it is what you mean?

Given a cube, any planar cross section will pass through at most 4 faces of the cube. You are referring to a lateral cross section, essentially cutting the cube in half.

The four sides the cross section touches are what you call "4 side" and the two faces not touching the cross section are what you call "2 polar".

If that is what you mean, what is its significance? Why is this particular geometry important?
M0nK3Y
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2016 5:29:57 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
If you do not accept undisputed cubic measurement, and your enemy does, by resuming the status quo, you will lose at the end of the day.

Cubic thinkers are smarter than you, those who influence cubic thought, more courageous.

The concept of a 'cubic plane', must be introduced to counter cubic misconception. Proof of a 'cubic plane': a square in a cube.

4 sides of a cube can be grouped on a single 'cubic plane'.

In any case, there are 2 sides ungrouped.

A cube has 4 side and 2 polar.

There is not an entity or group in this universe that disagrees, bar word-mammals who conceive a cube as having 6 side.

@Cobalt
What is the significance?

All modern and most of the past academia is incorrect.

We are heading toward the extinction of our species and the complete destruction of Earth's habitat for other species to develop, because of 'cube-less' (4 side and 2 polar) science and mathematics - that is truly pseudoscience.

We are much stupider not knowing how to measure a cube; we cannot think properly, we cannot live properly.

It's vital wisdom for the survival and development of our species. Theoretically human-kind has stalled.

We are all dependant on a Government. Metaphorically, we cool them down, and they hand us bananas.

I would ask you to 'imagine knowing love, or imagine knowing the abstract', to which you would reply with something stupid - that you're confused - that I, personally, am incomprehensible or insane... Which is just hypocritical nonsense...

Before I presented cubic logic, and the best response that you can give is 'what is the significance of this?'. It's logic, it's absolute truth, as I said before, nothing but human-kind affected by false academia disagree; the Earth has a north and a south pole and an equator. We have polars and sides as humans, everything in the universe is of the cubic dimensions I specified.

What is significance of this?

Are you completely lost?
Cobalt
Posts: 991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 4:08:27 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/22/2016 5:29:57 PM, M0nK3Y wrote:

I must not be a cubic thinker, as I fail to understand your point.

I only commented because I am a lover of geometry and was wondering if you had some geometric point to make. Now that I see the cube is just a metaphor, my interest is significantly reduced.

Do note that it is possible for two planar cross sections to intersect all 6 faces of a cube.
M0nK3Y
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 11:30:35 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
You're confused?

Nothing of value was lost.

This wisdom will surpass low-rate comments and flourish in the minds of those who are wise.
M0nK3Y
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 11:31:57 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
And whatever army you have doesn't matter.

Given education is stupid, it's probable a very high percentage of the world would reply with "I'm confused".
M0nK3Y
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 11:50:31 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
If there are more than 1 plane, from whatever way you look at a cube, there will always be 4 side and 2 polar. (This counters your only argument - the rest was an ego waltzing around.)

Talking, and sex, are no different. It's just tonguing each other insubstantially.

Banter can be good, but that's beside the point. You can't sugar coat the truth.

I'll never submit to the idea of friendship being important.

I choose seclusion, and keep myself to partners and associates.

When people say it's normal because "everyone does it", these people don't have the same respect for [the whole of] humanity in every case.

When you look for a partner, do you consider everyone else? When you're recruiting for a job, does everyone else pass your mind?

"Everyone else?!"

Everyone else is a mess, of course I won't do what everyone else does.

Thanks for your time...
Cobalt
Posts: 991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 2:09:02 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 11:50:31 AM, M0nK3Y wrote:

Talking, and sex, are no different. It's just tonguing each other insubstantially.

Banter can be good, but that's beside the point. You can't sugar coat the truth.

I'll never submit to the idea of friendship being important.

I choose seclusion, and keep myself to partners and associates.

Do you use this site exclusively while high, or are you just a troll? Vi-spex has already cornered the market on incomprehensible statements.
M0nK3Y
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 2:48:10 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
This is hypocritical stupidity.

You put on a show for an audience to act the same as you, perverting the course of justice with insults and intolerable behavior. You're a pain in the head for any person who would try to concentrate, promoting lack of concentration - making people think stupid thoughts.

All stupidity is a route of you.

You haven't argued against the truth I posted?
Cobalt
Posts: 991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 3:28:18 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 2:48:10 AM, M0nK3Y wrote:

You haven't argued against the truth I posted?

No, because I have no idea what it means. Your explanation was not clear to me.
M0nK3Y
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 5:35:29 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 3:28:18 PM, Cobalt wrote:
At 7/24/2016 2:48:10 AM, M0nK3Y wrote:

You haven't argued against the truth I posted?

No, because I have no idea what it means. Your explanation was not clear to me.

That's due to your intelligence, not the explanation.
Cobalt
Posts: 991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 2:03:45 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/22/2016 5:29:57 PM, M0nK3Y wrote:

This is the explanation you provided. Let's walk through it.

If you do not accept undisputed cubic measurement, and your enemy does, by resuming the status quo, you will lose at the end of the day.

How fascinating -- this seems to be a thesis statement, meaning you'll no doubt explain how this geometric cross section idea translates into an ideology and how that ideology is superior, or even matters.

Cubic thinkers are smarter than you, those who influence cubic thought, more courageous.

Another thesis statement. I'm sure you'll explain what a "cubic thinker" is in a bit.

The concept of a 'cubic plane', must be introduced to counter cubic misconception. Proof of a 'cubic plane': a square in a cube.

Ok.

4 sides of a cube can be grouped on a single 'cubic plane'.

Based upon your picture, you're referring to a lateral planar cross section of a cube, which happens to intersect exactly four sides of a cube. You haven't explained how this is relevant yet, but I'm sure you'll get there.

In any case, there are 2 sides ungrouped.

By 'ungrouped', you clearly mean that 2 sides of the cube are not intersected by the cross section.

A cube has 4 side and 2 polar.

You've now labeled the four sides of planar intersection "4 side", which I assume makes the non-intersecting faces "2 polar". I'm still not sure how basic geometry translates to a type of thought.

There is not an entity or group in this universe that disagrees, bar word-mammals who conceive a cube as having 6 side.

In that particular geometric construction, you've labelled four faces "4 side" and 2 faces "2 polar". Even in that construction, a cube still has 6 faces. You've just given them different labels.

@Cobalt
What is the significance?

All modern and most of the past academia is incorrect.

Lol.

I'm assuming you're going to prove this, or at least give a shred of evidence as to why that is true. That might be difficult, considering no person has individually even read all the academic work every published. I'm sure you're not an exception to this.

We are heading toward the extinction of our species and the complete destruction of Earth's habitat for other species to develop, because of 'cube-less' (4 side and 2 polar) science and mathematics - that is truly pseudoscience.

Whoa, hard left turn here. You've now linked "extinction of our species" with "cube-less science and mathematics", but you never explained what "cube-less science and math" even is. You didn't explain how the basic geometric construction you provided is in any way linked to race, or any non-geometry field of math and science.

We are much stupider not knowing how to measure a cube; we cannot think properly, we cannot live properly.

I think most people know how to "measure a cube". I think most people can also understand the basic geometric idea you've presented here.

It's vital wisdom for the survival and development of our species. Theoretically human-kind has stalled.

Knowledge of basic geometry isn't wisdom -- it's something everyone learns in high school.

We are all dependant on a Government. Metaphorically, we cool them down, and they hand us bananas.

Here's where your explanation devolves from "vague" to "gibberish". You failed to explain what this geometry has to do with the government. You've introduced a new mixed metaphor, which has something to do with bananas, but you've failed to explain that as well.

I would ask you to 'imagine knowing love, or imagine knowing the abstract', to which you would reply with something stupid - that you're confused - that I, personally, am incomprehensible or insane... Which is just hypocritical nonsense...

And this is an arrogant statement. You are rejecting the possibility that you are saying something that doesn't make sense, despite the fact no person on earth would find any meaning in the explanation you've presented here.

Before I presented cubic logic, and the best response that you can give is 'what is the significance of this?'. It's logic, it's absolute truth, as I said before, nothing but human-kind affected by false academia disagree; the Earth has a north and a south pole and an equator. We have polars and sides as humans, everything in the universe is of the cubic dimensions I specified.

And this is your summary statement. Let's see:

1. You've failed to explain how this geometric construction is relevant.
2. You haven't linked it to any realm of thought.
3. You haven't explained how people are "thinking incorrectly".
4. You haven't demonstrated how this relates to race.
5. You haven't proved that academia is in any way "all wrong".
6. You haven't even described what "cubic thinking" is.

The way I see it, two things are possible. Either what you posted makes sense and no one can understand it because you are of such extreme and unparalleled intelligence or you simply aren't making any sense.

Feel free to call me unintelligent all you like, but at the end of the day -- you've failed to say anything meaningful. You haven't even contributed a sensible idea here, meaning that you have no hope of educating others and others have no hope of educating you.

It's your right to believe something that doesn't make sense, but this is a place of intellectual discourse, which means that if you're going to try and discuss your ideas here, you have to be willing to a) present them in an understandable way and b) be open to explaining these ideas to members who attempt to actually engage in discourse with you.

Tl;dr: You've presented a 9th grade geometric construction, then attempted to relate it to race, academia and the government without even a shred of logic or evidence. In the Statement-Reasoning-Conclusion process, you've completely neglected the "reasoning" part. Try harder or stop trying.
M0nK3Y
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 3:23:07 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
4 sides of a cube can be grouped on a single 'cubic plane'.


Based upon your picture, you're referring to a lateral planar cross section of a cube, which happens to intersect exactly four sides of a cube. You haven't explained how this is relevant yet, but I'm sure you'll get there.


No.

I'm referring to 'cubic planes', which I introduced to counter cubic misconception. I never used a hybrid cubic and cube-less math.

The fact that this 'cubic plane' does cross 4 sides is what's relevant.

It was apparently irrelevant that a cube has 4 sides and 2 polar before I introduced it, and to counter this misconception, it was introduced.

How are 6 sides evident?

Truly, beyond your Government-academic induced response, it boils down to our perception of the cube, that 6 of it's faces are equal.

How is this relevant?

It's not evident, that 6 faces are equal. For starters, they face different directions - for second, they are opposites and more. I ask again, how are 6 sides relevant?

How is it useful to know a cube as having 6 sides?

Production has consequences! Had you known a cube as having 4 side and 2 polar, I would expect you to put enough emphasis on the consequence.

4 sides and 2 polar are relevant because it's truth. I'd like you to find an entity in the universe that disagrees or doesn't meet 4 sides and 2 polar physically.

In any case, there are 2 sides ungrouped.

By 'ungrouped', you clearly mean that 2 sides of the cube are not intersected by the cross section.

It's not a cross section, it's an unnecessary [to a wise person] cubic plane.

Yeah, that is what is meant; but don't continue without addressing the fact 2 sides are not grouped.

A cube has 4 side and 2 polar.

You've now labeled the four sides of planar intersection "4 side", which I assume makes the non-intersecting faces "2 polar". I'm still not sure how basic geometry translates to a type of thought.

All your responses are "I'm not sure", "I'm confused", look, you're not intelligent.

This is a recent trend - it's academic pseudoscience induced; where one's confusion is apparently merit showing intelligence. Present the knowledge you hold back, or don't respond.

There is not an entity or group in this universe that disagrees, bar word-mammals who conceive a cube as having 6 side.

In that particular geometric construction, you've labelled four faces "4 side" and 2 faces "2 polar". Even in that construction, a cube still has 6 faces. You've just given them different labels.

You're in disagreement with everything but Government-academic word-mammals, who will applaud you, who you work with to advertise falsehood.

You don't know a thing; you say that you know but you will never understand even the simplest of [true] science.

You're only defense is that the people who I've proved are stupid, are against me in vast numbers.

I explained very little about what's wrong about these people, but it was substantial enough to make an argument.

I wouldn't bother replying again as your next reply will be complete sinfulness.
Cobalt
Posts: 991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 9:52:57 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 3:23:07 AM, M0nK3Y wrote:
4 sides of a cube can be grouped on a single 'cubic plane'.


Based upon your picture, you're referring to a lateral planar cross section of a cube, which happens to intersect exactly four sides of a cube. You haven't explained how this is relevant yet, but I'm sure you'll get there.


No.

I'm referring to 'cubic planes', which I introduced to counter cubic misconception. I never used a hybrid cubic and cube-less math.

You can call it the cubic plane, but geometrically the thing you are calling the "cubic plane" is a cross section of a cube. In the picture you have provided, you clearly labeled the cross section a "cubic plane". Notably, the cross section of a 3D object is always 2 Dimensional.

It's not evident, that 6 faces are equal. For starters, they face different directions - for second, they are opposites and more. I ask again, how are 6 sides relevant?

I can admit that each of the faces have a necessarily different orientation. Suppose you have a cube and you label the top "Face A". Face A is facing directly upward, and we'll say it has a "northward orientation". It is unique compared to the rest of the sides, since it is the only side facing north.

However, if you rotate that cube toward you, Face A will no longer be north. As such, the factor which made it unique no longer applies -- it isn't a "northward face" anymore. If you put that same cube in a box and shook it, you would not be able to identify face A, since it looks like all the other ones.

Given that, it seems that all faces are indeed the same. In your example, the "cubic plane" intersects four sides, thus making them unique. However, if you pulled out the cubic plane, turned the cube clockwise, then reinserted the plane, the "2 polar" sides would now be part of the "4 side" sides. Given this, can we say that the faces aren't all the same?

This is a recent trend - it's academic pseudoscience induced; where one's confusion is apparently merit showing intelligence. Present the knowledge you hold back, or don't respond.

Intelligent people ask questions when they don't understand something. A fool does not act questions, but presumes to know all the answers.

I'm asking questions because I want to understand what you're trying to say. You should consider it a compliment that someone is actually putting in effort to comprehend your ideas and discuss them.

I wouldn't bother replying again as your next reply will be complete sinfulness.

I'm the only one who cared enough about your ideas to bother asking questions. If you'd like to stop responding, that's your right. But as it stands, I'm the only one taking you seriously.
wuliheron
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 3:33:17 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 9:59:09 PM, M0nK3Y wrote:
For rotation to occur naturally it takes 4 sides.

You are describing the distinction between gravity and inertia. The surface of a cube can be considered gravity socializing with everything, while a plane or layer of the cube is inertia resisting any attempts to socialize. Where geometry and change overlap is where Relativistic effects kick in conflating their identities.
M0nK3Y
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 6:01:39 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
You've come into both my threads under the impression you know more than me. Well, here's a surprise, you don't!

Try another thread, or make a sensible argument with a resolution.
Jry2001
Posts: 45
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2016 12:33:37 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 3:23:07 AM, M0nK3Y wrote:
You've now labeled the four sides of planar intersection "4 side", which I assume makes the non-intersecting faces "2 polar". I'm still not sure how basic geometry translates to a type of thought.

All your responses are "I'm not sure", "I'm confused", look, you're not intelligent.

It's not that he's unintelligent and can't understand the race cube's relation to ideology or race. Rather, it's that you have never stated anything that would link the two together.
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 5:45:31 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 7/23/2016 11:30:35 AM, M0nK3Y wrote:
You're confused?

Nothing of value was lost.

This wisdom will surpass low-rate comments and flourish in the minds of those who are wise.

That's not in the spirit of science really.
Meh!