THE NON-INNOVATIVE "TIME TRAVEL INNOVATION" THAT'S NOT AN INNOVATION, NOR TIME TRAVEL, AT ALL

"Is it really possible to travel back in time? What about traveling into the future, have we finally figured out how to do that? Well, you’ll have to read on to find out…"

And so starts the article, Time Travel Innovation, by a well known, self-proclaimed innovation expert who I won't identify because I know him personally and although the article has angered me greatly, I have no desire to turn this into personal grudge match - despite the fact I would win it with brutal efficiency. I don't suffer arrogant fools at all, let alone lightly. The reason it angers me is because it used a scientific field that I'm a recognized leading member of, to then hawk a misleading article on innovation that should've been straight forward, with no need to adorn it with the pizzazz of the most misunderstood and abused area of theoretical physics - time travel. That's right. Time travel.

So I'm going to do the author not only one, but two better. I'm going to answer the time travel issues that he baits his readers with, and show how his perspective on innovation is little more than snow job.

Immediately it was obvious that the author was only using the subject of time travel as click bait - with no clue what-so-ever about the science of the subject. How could I tell? "What about traveling into the future, have we finally figured out how to do that?" Time travel to the future is a difficult but well known exercise in Einstein's Relativity theories, known even among the general public. So the author's emphasis on "finally" tells me that either he's clueless and totally out of his depth or thinks his readers are. But his story lead worked, so I was committed, if only to find out how bad his erroneous answers would be. From his next line I knew they would be pathetic -

"But before we explore whether someone has finally figured out how to successfully time travel and recruit you to join me in investing in their pre-IPO startup, I’d like to introduce one of the most important visualizations from the world of innovation that many of you have probably never seen – Neri Oxman’s Krebs Cycle of Creativity from January 2016…"

And so the bait was set but without the author's realization that he had created a trap that would backfire in the most ironic way, as you will see at the end of my own piece here.

The author introduces us to what he calls "one of the most important visualizations from the world of innovation that many of you have probably never seen." I guess I should be impressed since I had never seen nor heard of it, but then again, I don't spend a lot of time reading about other's innovation ideas. I'm already a master of the process several times over (I know that's quite a brag but you'll see my point later. ) I don't need to read the latest innovation hype gimmick. Watch.

Essentially, Oxman Krebs of MIT's Media Lab has a cycle chart of creativity that shows the integration of activity between Art, Science, Engineering and Design that is the supposed to show creation of the innovation process. Just for argument's sake, I have expertise in each of those 4 areas - in art I invented the P.TVSynth™ a modified analog TV that enables me to synthesize analog radio and TV static - going back to the Big Bang with any TV or video line in-put to create original art not possible with any other platform - no computers involved. That alone covers the art, science, engineering and design angles though I'll toss in the trademark logo as an additional design feature and even an art element again, as the way that Krebs' uses art as an expression tool. Krebs' cycle uses art to express, science to explore, engineering to invent and design to communicate. My logo was designed to communicate a certain pop "artsy" feel, communicating colors similar to the well known "color bars" used in color video registration and the fonts are different from each other, reflecting that "pop" and playful attitude behind the device. It is literally a creative tool that has infinite possibilities. It was designed as my own personal technology solution for the inherent limitations to digital video technology - easy for me to say because I have an award winning, video special effects and design background and have exceeded what most other video artists and producers had done with the same production equipment, back in the '80s through '90s, when I was heavily active. So while I know how to mass produce the P.TVsynth™, I actually built it for my own use as a video special effect "engine", allowing me the freedom to easily produce video and still imagery, faster and at an infinite level, beyond anyone else. A true innovation that is a blend of art, science, technology, design and engineering. A true inspiration, first instilled in me by Todd Rundgren's Utopia keyboardist, Roger Powell, when he made his Powell Probe synthesizer keyboard controller back in the '70s, for his own uses as a musician and stage performer.

(Above: 1990. Shot off a preview monitor at Much Music. The lower third says it all...)

(My official P.TVsynth™ logo design art.)

That's one thing that is often missed - the duality of innovation. You can invent a product and never release it to the market because instead you want to sell the products it produces. This is also a strategy against patent theft - trade secrecy. If you build something, and don't reveal how it was built, and use it to produce other things that no one can make without it, that's a win.

Would I have found Kreb's Cycle of Creativity useful if I had known about it early on? What you have to realize is that things such as Kreb's Cycle of Creativity, and other gimmicks, are for people with no clue on how advanced levels of creativity and innovation work. The fact is, that if you already have that knowledge, you don't need so-called innovation experts or their training exercises. You're already doing it, every day, because you know that those skills become more productive the more you use them, so you want to use them as much and as often as possible - for both fun and work.

Let me give you the best example I have. Like other highly creative people, such as the Wright Brothers, Nikola Tesla, Steve Jobs, Thomas Edison, Philo Farnsworth, Marconi, Todd Rundgren, I don't have a college degree. None. In anything. As I recently told a bio-research CEO who had asked about the source of creativity, there are 9 levels of creativity. Most people are at 1-3. Then comes 4, which is the usual ceiling. I'm at 5 but under the proper circumstances I can reach 7. I consider 8 and 9 to be dangerous levels, only reached when the only thing that needs to be focused on is being creative and nothing else. Not daily living. Not the family. Especially 9. If not carefully balanced, 9 can lead to insanity. Many geniuses who were deemed insane were 8 and 9s. I have no examples of anyone that is constantly at 8 or 9. So being a 5 is demonstrated by the fact that I have proven time and time again, my superiority over established experts in their own fields. At first, it didn't seem that extraordinary until I started doing in fields where I had zero previous experience. Like in physics, aerospace, etc. And I was doing things that were out doing well known experts. Like Stephen Hawking.

So, I'm like, Kreb's Cycle Creativity? All of that is instant knowledge when you're on advanced levels of creativity. It's like getting dressed! Do you need someone to tell you what to wear and when? What to put on first? You do when you're a child, but not for long, even then.

The reason why so many people have gotten into the innovation game is because, though it may seem otherwise, no one is learning how to be creative on the advanced level and few if any of the innovation promoters is qualified to teach how - and why should they be? Once you learn it, you don't need them anymore or their piles and piles of phony creativity dreck. Especially not in the business world. Hey, I come originally from the world of multi-media rock and cinema entertainment and music production. No one in that business, that's actually doing things, has much of a problem being creative or they aren't there for long. Not so with the business world. P&G bragged a lot about how their innovation program made Tide Pods, but you know what? If you're innovative and know what you're doing, your product doesn't kill children and elderly people with dementia. I know. I've actually created a product so advanced that nothing like it has ever existed. Ripe for misuse and disaster, I built in controls that would delineate the dangerous aspects when required and then incorporated a product warning and liability waiver so sophisticated that the liability department of the law firm of Porter, Wright, Morris and Arthur determined it not only was the best thing they had seen, but exceeded anything required by law. Was anyone ever harmed when the product was released? NO. None had any side effects from the first and still only rock video album that can get you high - Seeing the Breykiot, nor did they crash while under the influence of it into another car with a family of four. Did I have Porter, Wright Morris and Arthur design the warning? NO. Did I have some neurological expert involved in the production? NO. My point is that when you have mastered creativity you can do almost anything.

I have a rating system that I use to establish mine or anyone else's creative prowess. In how many fields has a person been able to apply what they have learned about creativity and in those fields, how many breakthroughs or firsts did they accomplish? Mine stats are 39 and 87. The average for creativity and innovation promoters is 5 and less. Think about that. Many of these people are being paid large sums for their "expertise". What they produce on average is no better than what this author has in Time Travel Innovation. And worse…

Quickly the author moves from Kreb's Cycle to Rich Gold’s Matrix, which is another gimmick visualization that introduces speculative design, speculative engineering, and the inane contrast between "moving minds" & "moving molecules", (a completely pointless analogy) into the mix. It lacks the detail of Neri Oxman’s Krebs Cycle of Creativity visualization, but as the author points out, the Krebs Cycle of Creativity does lose Maeda’s expression of the linkages between science & exploration, engineering & invention, design & communication, and art & expression. But you know what? WHO CARES? These are but intellectual exercises that have not one whit to do with, boots on the ground, butts in the trenches, creativity and innovation when it counts. You show me where it does, and I'll show you an operation that is being mismanaged as far as innovation is concerned. The author talks about how the Krebs Cycle of Creativity still captures powerful tensions and assertions that can benefit in pursuits of innovation. But this is just a game, a 3 card Monte if you would. 'Oh look! We have the creative arrangement this way, but oh look - it can be this way too. Which is better?' WHO CARES? You know why? Because it just depends on what you're trying to achieve and what your project calls for. Anyone, for crying out loud! ANYONE operating on an advanced level of creativity would know this in seconds. If they're really good, one second. If they're on my level or beyond, NANOSECONDS.

If I sound demeaning or like I'm looking down my nose at these methods, you would right. But I've reached that level where I can prove I have the right to. And guess what? The CEO or CCO or whomever, isn't going to care about my attitude, in fact they'll like it, if they're smart. Why? Because my attitude will save them money, lost time and productivity, because I won't have their people wasting time learning this dreck. I'll have them learning how to be super-creative so they won't be doing these simple minded exercises and extrapolations. Because under no circumstances will they make anyone super-creative.

The author wraps with reviewing The Krebs Cycle of Creativity from a number of different perspectives and utilized in a number of different ways. But, as you might of guessed, he uses one way to look at it is as if it were a clock face. He states, "Using the Krebs Cycle of Creativity Canvas in a clockwise direction will help us explore:

What information do we have about what might be possible?

What knowledge needs to be obtained?

What utility does the invention create?

What behavior do we need to modify to encourage adoption?

It begins with the invention of a new piece of technology created by the usage of existing information and a new perception of what might be possible within the constraints of our understanding of the natural world, or even by expanding our understanding and knowledge of the natural world using the scientific method."

That's exactly what my P.TVsynth™ is - an invention (a modified analog TV) created by the usage of existing information (how analog TV's work inherently and not just are meant to work) and a new perception of what might be possible within the constraints of the natural world (radio waves and electromagnetic radiation and signals, etc) or even by expanding our understanding and knowledge of the natural world using the scientific method (such as the pure research laboratory that I created and did the initial R&D which led to the P.TVsynth's™ creation later). In one 2011 promotional blurb for it I wrote, "Conversely, the P.TVsynth™ makes use of the freedom of the analog signal, which can contain everything from a broadcast to the remnants of background radiation from the Big Bang - an impossibility for digital TV receivers. It is the ultimate expression of the television age - taking TV from being a passive information distribution tool, to be even more passively consumed, to being an active device - able to create special effects and receive data, for a ready mix, from the airwaves or external video input - with which the user actively participates to create original and highly imaginative art faster than digital will ever accomplish. The Excalibur of video production devices, producing a rainbow bridge between mind and machine, a translator between cosmic consciousness and the universe."

Did I need Krebs Cycle of Creativity to do it? Please…I will give a real world example of identifying a behavior that needs modification in order to encourage adoption of a product I've developed. There's a video game available for free to play online whose designer incorporated a unique feature that I won't reveal because I see it as an entire new way of potentially playing games and the way people watch them. No one is playing video games this way yet - but I see it as the next level to come. Long story short, because it has been hard contacting this designer - because he lives in the Middle East, I've decided to design a whole new game from scratch that will include this particular design feature but more effectively integrated and then release the game for free online with the intention of making it an addictive, 'waste time at work', game and eventually spawn contest events, etc. The key to its success will be the fact that unlike anything else out there, it will produce a bigger adrenaline rush and peak endorphin production.

The author then wastes time talking about the intersection where innovation occurs in many organizations between the engineering and design and art departments but then adds that "it doesn't mean that it is the best way". Why not just tell us what the best way is? Because there actually is no best way, but that's something he hides 'til later.

(Above: Billboard for Parallel Universes, the video art film created with the Programable Television Synthesizer™.)

(Above: Images created with the Programable Television Synthesizer™, Copyright 2011)

What the author tries next is to tie his time travel premise in with his innovation theme and results in proving his ineptness at both. "But as we all know, water can run uphill, the moon can eclipse the sun and yes, time can run in reverse" Not true! The statement about time running in reverse is not substantiated by the author, in the least, which is a problem because it's pretty clear to me that he's not operating with any cogent model for what time even is and yes, that is a problem, due to the well known fact that there are variety of concepts from physics that have been used to imply a reversal of time, a reversal of the direction of time, change of events in the past, etc. The author just makes that statement without any indication what he's referring to, just one indication that he's taking his own shallow, pedestrian understanding of temporal mechanics and using it the way he does his own shallow, pedestrian understanding of innovation. Essentially what the author does is draw an erroneous parallel between doing the various activities or stages of "innovation" in a reverse order and time reversing. He does so under the heading of Traveling Back in Time. This is all malarkey because of a statement that he made earlier which he thinks his readers will miss - "The Krebs Cycle of Creativity can be viewed from a number of different perspectives and utilized in a number of different ways. "

If that's the case then there is nothing special about the order that it's done in, so there goes any big insights derived from doing it in reverse order, and thus "turning back the clock". In other words, my assessment regarding Krebs, as exemplified by my invention of the P.TVsynth™ was correct which renders the entire article an exercise in making up talking points just to be talking, which is the number one problem with the entire innovation hype industry - a whole lot of people selling you on the idea that they know what they're talking about when all they're doing is talk. Ask any of them, how many different fields that they've been able to apply their so-called expertise in and out of those, how many breakthroughs they were able to score and watch them stammer and stutter.

Now that I've shown that I already know and have used all of the elements that the author is talking about being employed in the "most important visualization from the world of innovation" I had never seen, I'm going to show you how he he essentially ran a scam on his readers with all those claims about time travel.

After admitting that he hadn't "torn any worm holes through the fabric of the space-time continuum with this article", he writes, "now it is time to answer the question you had at the beginning of this article… Is time travel possible?" Of course he doesn't. What he does do is provide a link to a nearly 10 year old NASA article about the space-time vortex that has been detected around the Earth due to frame dragging which, in and of itself, has nothing to do it time travel. He followed that up with another NASA article, outdated at the time that the author of this innovation piece referenced it, labeled with - "Disclaimer: This material is being kept online for historical purposes. Though accurate at the time of publication, it is no longer being updated." So this innovation article's author didn't even care enough about his readers to offer the latest information on the subject that he used to bait them to read his piece in the first place!

He does admit that "And yes, time travel is theoretically possible, or at least time is not theoretically constant…" in reference to the first NASA article, proving that he is completely out of his depth - "not theoretically constant" doesn't mean anything. The proper phraseology would be that time isn't constant, which is a fact and not theoretical in any way, but the author is quick to suggest that "if anyone wants to invest a million dollars in my time travel startup, I’ll cash your check. Because who knows, maybe your check is what will finally make time travel possible! Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?" which is a weak attempt at humor, referencing the '80s film Ferris Bueller's Day Off, which both dates the author and reveals just how pathetic and disingenuous he's being with his chosen theme for his article.

Well, it just so happens that I am actually running a pre-IPO time travel start-up and I am a leading funding recipient for time travel research. We can demonstrate the parallel universe model of quantum reality (known as Everett Relative State interpretation ) with physical experiments that match the predictions for successful experiment results - a feat which has out done Nobel Prize winner Frank Wilczek's plans to prove it, and proved CERN's Mir Faizal wrong about its possibility. It has not only spawned a conversation on using time travel to the past as an alternative means of escape for those Silicon Valley billionaires that Sam Altman had been talking about to Atlantic magazine, but the possible creation of a government run operation to save Humanity from extinction level events.

That may sound impossible but that's only because the efforts that have contributed toward making time travel to the past an actual possible reality are not well known and the research has not been covered well by the media. I myself have 20 some odd years in time travel and time related research and study - with the intent of solving the inherent issues, while individuals like US medal of science award winner Yakir Aharonov, the late John Archibald Wheeler, Rainer Plaga, David Deutsch, Andrew Cleland and others, all working independently, have contributed theory, work and experiments that have helped to form a coherent approach to time travel to the past outside of the theories of Relativity.

To what end? Well, I've proven the link between retrocausality and parallel universes with physical experiments that were thought not to be possible, used innovation approaches to modify Aharonov's idea for a time machine based on a marriage between quantum measurements and General Relativity, into just utilizing quantum measurements and the principles of resonance, and more. The result is that we have achieved the end of time travel theory development - only needing now to ascertain the proper method of triggering into existence a copy of a past era at the preconceived target area. In other words, take a photograph of the past, copy it on a blank sheet and you now have the same photograph but on a new sheet. The copier, in this role, is the time machine. The sheets are slices of the present as it was and is. When Wheeler's 'it from bit' is the foundation of reality, the key to time travel is merely the quantum manipulation of information.

(Above: Laser set-up in action, traveling left to right with retrocausal shutter system at upper right. Bottom photo shows laser hit in the center without cause - no laser activity coming from the left in the photo, fulfilling Ranier Plaga's 1995 prediction for a successful experiment proving parallel universes,)

Ironically, the media enjoys repeatedly reporting on the University of Connecticut physics professor, Ronald L. Mallett (my only real competitor who betrayed me after I helped him, 2007-2012) who has proved himself to be nothing more than a media hoax - never has he even written a physics paper on any time travel related issues, he allowed his provisional patent on his time machine design to expire but doesn't tell anyone so they would believe that he did have one, and is often erroneously referred to as being on the leading edge of time travel research. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most media coverage of time travel is based on work and ideas stemming from Einstein's theories of Relativity which despite what you may have heard, are no-go solutions for time travel. If you look at most news articles on time travel research, they almost always involve solutions that won't be possible for many decades, if at all, and are usually just theoretical. They are the antithesis of innovation. First of all, they all require a space program beyond NASA's capabilities to even attempt, so that means they won't even be tried. Astrophysicists, like Mallett and Paul Sutter are the worse experts to talk to about time travel because the solutions are not found anywhere near General Relativity and that's what astrophysicists are focused on.

As an example of real world, competitive innovation, I have used wildly creative innovation tactics to overcome obstacles and turn Mallett's advantages into devastating liabilities which will destroy him in the end. Just like I was recognized for by the Innovation Excellence IX Cities tour event in 2014. Since then I took Mallett's alleged design for a time machine, which he never properly patented after pretending he had, and redesigned it so that it would actually work as a set-up proving parallel universes are real, something Mallett is on the record for saying would be impossible without a time machine. This means Mallet failed to see an obvious breakthrough in his own work, a true innovation failure. The conclusion: as Taylor Swift might say, "He-EEE will NEVER, EVER, EVER get a time machine together…"

Now Mallett, in the area of time travel research is my main competition, but only in the area of getting the lion's share of publicity. That's a problem for him because as I out produce, out research and out fund raise him (and I have now), there is a breaking point where my ability to get publicity will out pace his. But there is more. It won't just be my getting more publicity, but it will become apparent that all that publicity he had been getting was unwarranted - FAKE NEWS because he never published any papers, regarding time travel, just 3 on his flawed design which was never patented and has been proven to not be worth the paper it was typed on.

(Top photo: My modified Mallett set-up in action. The laser source is at bottom left. The bottom photo shows a laser hit on the mirror frame without cause, directly above the "M" in the word "Mallett" in the previous statement.)

Which brings us to the author's use of NASA articles to explain what is allegedly possible as far as time travel goes. "Neither of these indicate that it is possible to travel backwards in time (despite what Superman physics says), only to affect how time advances…" So, while using the phrase, 'time travel' and promising to deliver on what is possible as far as time travel goes, the author fails (hey, that's a concept that innovation hawkers like him have promoted - failing fast). And that's after promising to "explore whether someone has finally figured out how to successfully time travel and recruit you to join me in investing in their pre-IPO startup…" So, he based the article on a false premise that was two fold - they didn't have any exploration of whether someone had finally figured out time travel and started a pre-IPO start-up, nor did they even get the answer correct as to whether it's even possible. But there's more - within Time Travel Innovation is an embedded video on time travel with all the usual worthless information but ends with the possibility that a solution might be found one day in the quantum mechanics of entanglement. It's wrong but it at least points towards a quantum mechanical solution which is where Neil Turok told the BBC it would be coming from. "Don't be surprised if someone comes along and shows us all how to do it."

Well, not only is it possible, it's being worked on for the most important reason of all - survival. Not long before the Coronavirus began to be a concern, North Korea began saber rattling again, Iran launched its missile attack and the Organization of Nuclear Scientists moved the hands on the Doomsday Clock to 100 seconds before midnight, I published the study, A Special Report: Temporal Escape, on Academia.edu which makes the argument that for a mere fraction of the cost of all the space exploration that's being worked on, the final determination of time travel to the past could be ascertained and with tremendous benefits if successful. While Elon Musk and others have talked about the need for Humankind to expand into space in order to survive any extinction level events, time travel to the past, if successful, would be the much bigger pay off, to be sure. It is the only method to provide full proof means of assuring the greatest number of human survivors of any extinction level event that may happen here on Earth. A Special Report: Temporal Escape details all aspects of the time travel mission to Earth:12KB4 - 12,000 thousand years ago, the current state of the research, geopolitical issues, logistics, numerous benefits that wildly exceed those of space exploration and how the program will be eventually funded by governments or elements from the private sector.

Cost? $100,000 for the feasibility tests and $1,000,000,000 to get a successful operation up and running. Why so cheap? Because, unlike what the author of Time Travel Innovation portrayed, the hard work has already been done. If we can't cross the finish line for $100K, it's because, despite all indications so far, that it just isn't possible. No worries. A Special Report: Temporal Escape even has the plan for paying back that $100K if the plan fails. On the up side, in addition to providing a significant escape plan for surviving extinction level threats to the planet, the economic boom from mining, food production, energy, building materials, etc would exceed many times over all of the economic benefits of space exploration at a mere fraction of the cost. In other words, for a tiny, tiny minute fraction of the initial cost of launching space exploration efforts, the financial pay-offs would be many thousand times greater than those space exploration could ever offer in total. Ever.

So, in short, instead of the author of Time Travel Innovation offering something truly important to visualize, in as far as innovation goes, we get diagrams that simply show that innovation can work in any direction the situation demands, and when baited to receive information about what has been discovered in regards to time travel, the info is outdated, pathetic and inaccurate. A typical example of the state of what innovation hype has become.

Now, after seeing how little there was to Time Travel Innovation, both on the innovation side as well as that on time travel, it makes me wish there was a way to go back and regain that time I wasted reading it. However, I've decided to do the truly innovative thing and turn that wasted time into a lesson for others and deliver on both fronts where that author failed miserably - innovation and accurate time travel info.

In closing, the author's Time Travel Innovation is a stupid and misleading article that ignores the opportunity to focus sincerely on the ways in which innovation can be accomplished, by trading instead on old, shallow and poorly researched time travel tropes as gimmicky click bait. Then again, perhaps the author thought it was a pretty innovative way to shuck out yet another article to bolster his paper tiger image as an innovation expert.

Fail…

Note: Accenting the importance of achieving time travel to the past, the Covid-19 (coronavirus) has now spread around the world and has become a pandemic, the timing for which brings to mind the motion picture, 12 Monkeys, and inspiring my acceleration of my time travel research into Operation Covid-19: The 12 Monkeys To Midnight Situation. Wish me luck. Our futures may depend on it...