Why "The Good Stuff" Isn't, When it Comes to Time Travel

Wheezy Waiterm, AKA Craig Benzine, is the main host for a geek/nerd Youtube show called The Good Stuff. I don't watch these kinds of shows, because for the subjects I like, it's always above the pay grade of the show hosts and they either wind up pretending they know or understand it, or kiss the ass of some scientist they interview. Then later is what happens when the hapless cast of The Good Stuff have on the greatest fraud in the history of physics, Ronald L. Mallett. Nothing, and I mean nothing of any significance related to time travel has resulted from Ronald Mallett's claims, which are often exaggerated and baseless, if not outright lies, despite the fact he hides behind Einstein like a religious zealot hides his terrorism behind the name of his god. For the record, Einstein didn't even like the idea of time travel and since Mallett is supposed to be such a fanboy for the man, he should know that. And for ALL OF YOU, I don't care if you're a geek, nerd, armchair physicist or some PhD in theoretical physics in some community college somewhere—Guess what? The fact that all the solutions for time travel derived from Einstein's theories require a SPACE PROGRAM should tip you off that they're not exactly applicable solutions to the problem at hand and the answers actually lie elsewhere. That none of you are too swift on that account is probably why you don't realize how insane it makes you all look. Right. INSANE, or have you forgotten the quote that has been erroneously attributed to your favorite genius, pre-Hawking. You know—"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result"? Like, you know, like constantly trying to force relativity to produce time travel results. Good quote. Certainly applies to all of the aforementioned suspects, but no, Einstein didn't say it. After all, as a professional researcher, I check my sources. More on time travel and its dubious links to the theories of Relativity, momentarily.

As for my fraud accusations against Mallett, what do you call someone who claims to be an expert in a field and yet has never published a single paper dealing with that subject. Not one. Not even in pre-print form! Best yet, Ronald Mallett has been linked to attempts at fraud, such as this example below where he tweets his thanks to someone for promoting "the World Patent Marketing video." That tweet broke the law in Florida concerning the use of advertising that contains false and misleading statements in order to sell anything, and that tweet is direct evidence of Mallett's active involvement in doing just that. If you remember, World Patent Marketing was shut down in 2017 for bilking inventors for millions of dollars, but the video that Mallett is talking about was the one created to promote a fund raising scheme for Mallett, concocted by World Patent Marketing CEO, Scott J. Cooper which would've also bilked the unwary, because it was based on Mallett's baseless time travel theories and his claim that they would lead to faster communications. You can read all about it here.

Take a moment and watch the video above, which demonstrates a phenomena called, gravitational lensing.

"If gravity can effect time and light can create gravity, then light can effect time," Ronald Mallett tells Benzine at 4:07 on the video counter at the top. Craig just accepts this statement as fact and moves on via editing, but I'm going to stop the proceedings at this point, because it just struck me that this is exactly where Ronald Mallett's theory has its first failure—the idea that light can create gravity. What Craig is missing, and what I've usually glossed over because there's soooooo much else WRONG with Mallett's theory, that I allowed this glaring hidden assumption to stand without challenge, just like Craig does. The point isn't what Mallett's saying is wrong—it's that there's zero quantitative data in his statement. In other words, how much gravity does it take to effect time by how much? If light can create gravity, how much light does it take, in what forms, etc, to create how much gravity? And finally, how much light does it take to then effect time, by how much and in what manner?

The problem is that in order for light to create gravity, it must be light on an enormous scale, intensity, and rotating. Earth has a vortex, as NASA's Gravity Probe B showed, but it doesn't warp space-time into a loop, even going 1,000 MPH!

After all, in the famous Wheeler delayed choice experiment in space, the task is to choose which way to retrocausally effect the path of a photon that has traveled one of two ways from its source and passing a large celestial body that is producing gravitational lensing. Gravitational lensing is produced by the warping of space by a gravitational field of a body in space so light is bent around it. So what we have is an example where light clearly doesn't have anywhere near the gravitational pull of a body in space which also doesn't have the pull to twist space and time into a loop. Most bodies rotate and probably create some level of frame dragging, as the Earth does, but it's not strong enough to twist time and space into a loop! Not even black holes do that. It might create frame dragging, but going from frame dragging to space-time loop twisting is a far, far stretch. This is one of the reasons that physicists such as Nobel Prize winner Kip Thorne, Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku, J.R. Gott, Brian Greene, Sean Carroll, Ken Olum, and others, do not support Ronald Mallett's claim, but Mallett keeps referring to such claims as a "breakthrough" when it is anything but. However, I want to make the additional point that aside from his idea not working on multiple levels—even if it did it wouldn't be a breakthrough because of what it would take to meet the enormous energy requirements. It wouldn't be any more of a breakthrough than the Tipler cylinder is or J.R. Gott's cosmic strings scheme! In other words, it's not even feasible and he doesn't need $300,000 to test that—I just did—via the classic gedanken approach.

Furthermore, Mallett exposes yet another flaw in his theory when he states at 4:55, "So by twisting space I can twist time, and by twisting time I can travel back into the past." Actually, that's not what it means at all. I will deal deftly with this issue by pointing out that to make such a statement requires the knowledge and understanding of a cogent model of time that resolves the issues and questions related to the nature of time. What? You didn't know there were any such things? The fact is, in the scientific community there is no agreement on the nature of time, what it does nor even if it exists at all. It's why I wrote the article, An Authoritative Response To Time In Cosmology, to point out why experts at a conference on time and the block universe were so confused and disorganized in their thinking, and had no real answers at the end of it. I do have the answers and like any good theory, it resolves known problems, such as the asymmetry of time. Mallett's never done anything in the area, odd since he's supposed to be an expert on time travel. My model of time posits that time's purpose in physics is to allow things to happen and space is where they happen. So, in short, if you twist space and time into a loop, you just have a loop. Time doesn't make anything happen—it's just a facilitator. Nor is it some recorder that you can run forward and backward—the reason why we never see things happen in reverse—although the math would allow for it. If you think that means time travel is actually something different than what you've been led to believe, you'd be right. But then Ryan Wolff, another member of this hapless cast, jumps in at 5:00, from off camera, with utter nonsense.

"If there is going to be like a closed time loop, that would really, only kind of exist within the space of the device...", to which Mallett states, "You're absolutely right and that's important," which is only partially right, being that all of the action that Mallett posits does happen within the space of the device. The problem is that his device not only wouldn't create closed timelike loops but such things don't exist nor would operate as believed, if they did. Academia.edu promoted my paper, KILLING CLOSED TIME-LIKE CURVES (For Their Own Good and Ours) which points out the well established reason why time loops are essentially an unfortunate fiction, providing yet another reason why Mallett's work is dead in the water. Nothing goes back in time or even forward in time—literally. They go through it as they travel through space, so to accomplish what people mean when they say backward in time, you have to leave the normal intuitions regarding space and time behind, and remember—if you drop a ball, did time make that happen? No? Then why the heck would you think time could make it un-happen...? Hmmm?

Next Mallett unintentionally opens a can of worms when he says at 5:11, "Everyone is actually—has their own private space and time. The only reason we seem like we're all in synch is that we're all moving so slow, compared to the speed of light, with everyone else, and that is in fact what allows for the possibility of time travel."

That of course is utter malarkey. Quickly, here 's why—First, we don't all have our own "private space and time" we just all have our own space-time clocks. That's not the same thing. That just a way to measure the effects on our bodies of our moving through space-time at varying velocities and for varying durations. In other words, our aging. Second, the part about us seeming like we're in synch is accurate however, Mallett just blows that when he links that fact to the possibility of time travel. They have absolutely nothing to do with each other! Period. What Mallett is implying is that time dilation is linked to time travel and it is not linked to true time travel, which is why physicists who think like that have gotten nowhere in the search for time travel solutions. The idea that time dilation causes a person to go into the future is asinine. If you go into the future, you're no longer in the present—period. The whole twins paradox model only works because time for the traveling twin (meaning the rate of duration) has slowed down BUT the entire time both twins were in the same time, the same space-time continuum. There's nothing time travel about it, beyond that. Remember what I said about the insanity of doing the same thing over and over and over again, i.e. applying relativity to time travel?

Then suddenly, at 5:28 Wolff begins again, saying, "It's like we're each occupying our own..." and then he's suddenly interrupted by Craig with yet another asinine statement—"Timeline!" Then Mallett makes my case for me, when he then states, "That's exactly right", which it isn't, and then Craig does one of those stupid things that too many geeks and nerds do—acts like his mind has just been blown by this spectacular revelation, which it isn't. He'd know that if he had the brains for this subject, which he clearly doesn't. Having our own clocks is not like having our own timelines anymore than scuba diving will slow down your rate of aging because the speed of light going through water is slower.

Craig continues on, talking about how they talked with Mallett about paradoxes, parallel universes, quantum theory, because—according to Craig, they're "time travel geeks," which means they're nothing more than fanboys with no comprehension of the science nor are they interested in any answers or they WOULDN'T HAVE WASTED AN ENTIRE EPISODE ON BS THAT'S ALREADY BEEN COVERED FOR LAST 19 FRICKIN' YEARS! How about that, CRAIG?!

So in short, there's no way for Mallett to build his time machine. NONE. You want further proof? Read this other paper, sinking his stupid theory for separate reasons which don't even include the objections of the noted physicists—

And now on to some real time travel science. Previously I mentioned Wheeler's delayed choice experiment as done in space. Ronald Mallett not only knew Wheeler, but quoted a series of questions that Wheeler was famous for asking, which proves beyond a doubt that Mallett hasn't the prerequisite intelligence to handle time travel research. On page 127 of his book, Time Traveler, Mallett states,

"Typical Wheeler follow-up questions would be 'Why does quantum theory underlie reality?' and 'Could reality be based on some other fundamental principle?' Other well-known quotes of Wheeler's: 'Without an observer, there are no laws of physics,' and 'How does something arise from nothing?'"

What Wheeler was doing was giving a primer of sorts on the kinds issues that underlie true time travel science and Mallett was, and is, too dense to even see it for what it is. For that matter, so is most everyone else.

Well, science writer, Tim Folger discussed the idea of retrocausality in space in his 2002 article for Discover—Does the Universe Exist if We're Not Looking? with Folger attributing to Wheeler that, "The measurements made now, says Wheeler, determine the photon's past. In one case the astronomers create a past in which a photon took both possible routes from the quasar to Earth. Alternatively, they retroactively force the photon onto one straight trail toward their detector, even though the photon began its jaunt long before any detectors existed."

It was in my subsequent paper that I first posited the obvious, to those of us qualified to talk about time travel science (clearly not the Good Stuff crew), implications of Wheeler's observation. In, Tim Folger Discovers A Time Machine, I note that, "The ultimate conclusion of all of this is that we are capable of altering the past because the universe is capable of creating multiple pasts and it does so to prevent paradoxes. As a result, it is time to build machines that can exploit the possibilities this suggests. It's hard for me to believe that Wheeler, having deduced the functions of this process, was unaware of their implicit meaning. Having been stung a bit, by the initial reviews of the Everett/Wheeler hypothesis, due to what he called the "metaphysical baggage", after he had already endorsed it, I believe it is possible that this time Wheeler deliberately refrained from stating the obvious, relying instead on someone else to put it all together. In this case, for Tim Folger to phrase it clearly enough, that the inherent potential becomes evident, despite that it may be over a decade later. "

I might add that I've been notified by Academia.edu, the site hosting that paper (and most of my other ones) that a faculty member in the department of Technology Forecasting, HRD, IPR & ISoO 9001 at Defence Research And Development Organisation, read it this month. Although the name sounds similar, Defense Research and Development Organization is not some division of, or has any affiliation with DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency). Nope. It's a division of the Indian government. Their version of DARPA and the department of Technology Forecasting is close to being like the infamous department of Foreign Technology at Wright Patterson Air Force Base where allegedly, the crashed saucer from Roswell, was taken. Ironic because at 6:19 on the counter, Mallett says that if the CIA determined that North Korea was working on a time machine, then he'd have more money than he knew what to do with, which isn't true, since in his own memoir Mallett states on page 186, 2nd paragraph, end of 5th line—"The last thing I wanted was to accept military funding only to have the work classified and snatched away - perhaps at the moment that the military realized the experiment worked." Did I say that Mallett has problems with the truth?

In my most recent paper, Turning Professor Ronald Mallett's Failed Time Machine Design Patent Into A Breakthrough Experimental Platform (He Should've Seen For Himself), I pulled it all together. "The answer is prosaic—if the universe is indeed participatory, and my experiments and others, support that position, and attempts to change the past result in the creation of new, parallel branches of the universe, all that is needed is to identify the method to induce a change, quantum mechanically, that results in a causation in the present of the existence of a new, parallel universe copy of the past."

In other words, for those of you without PhDs, we're talking about changing a local present reference frame into a copy of a past one, just as Wheeler was stating that we could retrocausally change the past. If you can change a present into a copy of the past, that is—by definition, time travel and it wouldn't be bound by any nonsense dealing with nonexistent closed timelike curves and would in fact allow for Ronald Mallett to meet his dear old dad, despite the fact that, at this point, he doesn't deserve it! But how to turn that process into a time machine?

As I surmised toward the end of my book, Paradox Lost: The True Geometries of Time Travel, the key was first found in the work of Yakir Aharonov and the 1992 article, Time Travel Redux in Discover, by David H. Freedman. Long story short, Aharonov designed a theoretical time machine whose key component was a quantum measurement device—what I call a quantum trigger. Aharonov is no schmuck like Mallett, either. In the video below, he's being awarded the National Medal of Science.

I have adapted Aharonov's "quantum triggers" for use in experiments and time machine designs, marrying them with the extrapolations of Wheeler's delayed choice experiments and in doing so, jettisoned the last vestiges of Einstein and relativity from any cogent discussion on practical time travel.

These experiments have married temporal mechanics with a new interpretation of retrocausality that I call RetroWorldality because I recognize that the strict interpretation of retrocausality violates the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics without remedy and that the RetroWorldality interpretation introduces both the Everett Relative State Interpretation and John Wheeler's 'it from bit' information basis and Participatory Universe model as an overall construct. Remember, I said EXPERIMENTS. You know - the kind of thing that real scientists do and that Ronald Mallett has yet to conduct.

Using electrical engineering genius, Gabriel Kron's, method of generalized machines, I saw in Mallett's basic ring laser design something else, a new purpose for the configuration. In doing so, a new question is addressed—by adding a fan/shutter system to it, as well as replacing a mirror with a second 2 way mirror, would anomalous hits be observed as they had with my other experiments where laser pulse hits occur when no laser had been fired to account for it, (see Using Todd Rundgren's Song, Parallel Lines To Prove Hugh Everett III's Parallel Worlds)? I ended up collapsing, the exact square configuration of Mallett's set-up, to more of an open ended triangle—for the sake of getting everything into the shot with the space I had to work with, but the point was that I had never done this experiment with so many mirrors, nor in this manner. In fact, anomalous hits did show-up. Further experiments, with an exact, closed square set-up, might show multiple anomalous hits sequentially , especially if a pulse hit continues to bounce around the ring of mirrors.

What this experiment shows is that, the basic design idea of the ring laser set-up, can give rise to the retrocausally derived, RetroWorldality evidence of the Everett Relative State interpretation. Simply applying Kron's approach to machines and adding a 2 way mirror with a fan/shutter system, and changing the lasers from beams to pulses, accomplished the task, proving how reality and parallel universes work. But I see far beyond that - not only toward further projections of quantum explorations of reality with that basic set-up, a la the Aharonov model of quantum triggers, but the extending into the actual provisional patent design art for Mallett's LOTART idea - the implications, which are obvious to me, would have been of astounding legitimate breakthroughs to Mallett's credit. However, as he admitted that he lacks the aptitude for experimental work, this would all be far outside of his intellectual grasp and impossible for him to accomplish.

And so below we have Ronald Mallett proving, beyond a shadow of a doubt, what an ignorant and pompous impostor he is. Taken from the 2003 documentary, The World's First Time Machine (I can't even type that with a straight face) that has now become a total faux-documentary (because there's soooo much bad information in it—like a museum in the future that lauds Mallett as the father of time travel) which has the producers of the film now even down playing Mallett's role in it (he's nowhere in the video's packaging and scarcely mentioned), Mallett states that as far as he's concerned, (as if that has any relevance at all), "the paradoxes that people talk about are only going to be resolved after we build the first time machine. Then we will know whether or not free will enters into it, whether there's multiple universes or whether the universe is determined. That's going to have to be understood, experimentally."

Sorry Ronnie, but it's already been done—by me, and using your favorite little tool—the laser, and without having to use a time machine. As far as I'm concerned, if you were actually legitimate, you would've known that. After all, Rainer Plaga's proposal for testing parallel universes was reported in New Scientist in 1995 and his paper published in Foundations of Physics in 1997. Where the Hell were you? I knew about it! If you are as smart as the media claims (and the Good Stuff crew proclaims), you would've figured it this all out. But you didn't, because your aren't and that's the way it is...

Ronald Mallett has had at least 19 years to live up to the hype he undeservedly received from the media and so called "science nerds." Now, with legitimate progress stemming from a range of contributors, it's time the media drop this tired and worn out farce, and give attention to the real breakthroughs, with actual science supported by physical experiments, or else be deserving of the moniker of FAKE NEWS.

(Coming SOON. The first of a three book series exposing the truth about the greatest fraud in physics, how and why he turned out that way - It Was Matter Of Time.)

(Above: The cover art for the upcoming book, It Was A Matter of Time)