In this topic I want you to post and ask for anything that have been a mystery to you.
Things like: Who was the first to copy the original cube. Or what was the original color scheme.
Chances are that some people here might know it

My questions are:
What is the edge length or the original Master Pyraminx?

What is the edge lenth of the original Pentultimate?

How was the original Master Octahedron made? I think I heard somewhere that it was made from a Rubik's 4x4x4. If this is correct I would be thrilled to know the process.
Also about this puzzle, how many was made. Who owns one. And where can I see a picture of it in the collection?



Thank you!

What about the rubik's cube makes people so repetitively inclined to solve it?

Something that's been bugging me for a few days, maybe a forum member will have an accurate mathematical answer.

What are the best dimensions for a 3x3? (ie best corner cutting, smoothest turning, etc.) Like, what should be the inner sphere diameter (or radius) and what should be the outer edge length? Although 57mm is the most commonly used, is it the best? It seems like smaller and bigger cubes aren't as good, but is it possible we just aren't building them well enough?

The obsessive part of your mind that doesn't like to see a scrambled puzzle. It recognizes that you are capable to solve it and it makes you want to.


I'm thinking the ratios of the inner sphere to the cubie size and the parts versus the degree of 'bubbling' for smoother edges are fixed. The ratios, but not the actual size. The actual size is more of a personal thing. My hands are bigger but my fingers are shorter, which means the MF8 Legend, which is smaller than most speedcubes, fits in my hands such that I can access all twists and turns from the 'resting position', and shorter fingers are not at disadvantage with the rounder parts and the loose turning. This means that, though by measures of speed, the Guhong is faster, the Legend fits my size more perfectly. On the other hand, the Meffert's 4x4x4 is a very fast 4x4x4 in my opinion. It's extremely swift and with breaking in does a decent job at cutting corners. One problem is that it's slightly too large. That means my hands have to shift and slow down in order to make the necessary turns. But, the Eastsheen is a much smaller 4x4x4, and for the same reasons the X-Cube should be better, the Eastsheen is my personal faster.



And now my contribution to the thread:
Twist, turn, flip, slide, see, pick, roll, throw, build... but what ever happened to the explosive ideas?

Why do KO companies always name their KOs after flowers?

What ever happened to the xcube 7?

This only explains why people compulsivity solve scrambled puzzles, not what compels them to keep scrambling it.

I agree with Ntype3, solving the 3x3x3 over and over and over trying to optimize for time is very odd. Solving the Rubik's cube is a logical challenge. Trying to get a good time is a dexterity, memorization, and pattern recognition challenge. It is very odd that people come to the puzzle for the logical challenge an stay for non-logic reasons.

I've been wondering that too.

This may qualify as an add-on to Sigurd's topic:
viewtopic.php?f=1&p=266248#p266248

Why is the Rubik's Cube something more than just a bookshelf filler? Why just six or seven years back in my life I had referred to it as a 'rubix' cube? I used to just pass them by - now I spend an hour a day on the TwistyPuzzles forum? Why? What makes the cube so intriguing, and why am I so interested after just a couple years?

Furthermore, what triggers this sudden interest? What made you start cubing?

--JC--

I feel like Socrates....

Well before I got into rubik's cubes, I had no idea that there was even a 4x4 or a 2x2 - let alone that there was a company/family called "mefferts", and I certainly hadn't heard of tony fisher, oskar van deventer, gear cubes, elementals,jumbling, fudging, pillowing, spider mech, nomech, vmech and shell mech, super-cubes, crazy cubes, mixup cubes...... The list really does go on and on

My point is, I think that the whole genre of puzzles is fascinating, because it is so expansive. I still discover new things, just by looking though old posts on here. I think that if you have an inquisitive mind, and you enjoy puzzles (of any kind- even just sudokus) then you will love the endless world of twisty puzzles (god, that sounds like a cheesy advert ).

Why didn't you just post these in his thread? It's not as if it's inactive- actually, it's at the top of the forum, just below this one. (Yes, my question started with the word "why.")

The thread "WHY?" Had no meaning in the title. In future, it would be very difficult to find. In addition to this, this thread really is an extension of the other so I have merged them.

I know David has asked on numerous occasions to have the titles have meaning. Can we please try?

Why did God wait an infinite amount of time before creating the Universe? Did he do anything useful in that time?

DISCLAIMER: This question is intended to provoke personal and private thought only, not a public religious discussion or debate, so please keep your thoughts to yourself and do not attempt to answer this question (potential bomb) in public.

then why bring it up?
God had to think it up first. he had all these planets he could juggle. But he needed some more so he made up life. The man and animal is physical version of himself wade with properties to co-live in harmony and disharmony to learn from.

edit: oups! I thought you meant life. Well I answered something else then

In a maximally entropic universe, does time exist?

Actually, all brown. The very first Rubik's Cube prototype made by Erno himself in 1974 was made from what looks like Oak wood. The only other colors were white on the centers and some darker spots.

Here is a picture from Rubiks.com:
http://www.rubiks.com/i/world/history/f ... s_cube.jpg

--JC--

Heck, in our universe does time exist?

Time exists in our universe, but its scope expands beyond just this one. It's like asking if Russia is in Europe. Technically, a part of it is in fact in Europe, but it does go beyond Europe into Asia.

Assume time is measured as the relative fourth-axis distance from cause to effect. Now assume the universe has reached maximum entropy. There can no longer be a cause or effect, therefore, how is time measured?

It could, theoretically, be measured from an objective, non-maximal entropic viewpoint as cause to effect from that particular viewpoint.


But now assume that you are at the highest objectivity level possible, and that level has reached maximum entropy. How do you measure time? There can be no cause or effect in any universe and on no objectivity level.

According to general relativity, time is restricted to our own universe (or each individual universe, if you believe in the multiverse theory) and was created with the big bang, so time didn't exist before and until the universe was created. However, that's only from the perspective of an internal observer looking at things from inside/within the universe. If you fell through a black hole or worm hole into another universe, then you would perceive that time continues into the new universe. And for an *external* observer looking at all universes from a higher dimension, the universes would appear like parallel sheets of paper stacked on top of each other, where time is a dimension running parallel to each sheet of paper, but not between them.

Anyway, I just posted the question because it's provocative and makes you wonder...

Your problem is you're thinking like a mathematician in a field of physics. You can't just assume so many things without coming to crazy conclusions.

Not true. The assumptions are asserting your position relative to everything. The only assumption, in that sense, is that of time being distance from cause to effect.

It's like taking the Theory of Relativity and, instead of saying, "From this person's standpoint" you say "Assume you're in this position"

Assume the can of beans is open...