Category: Uncategorized

Why Greg Satell’s Advice On The Creative Process Is Wrong

Copyright November, 21, 2017 All Rights Reserved

There are so many opinions on the creative process and what creativity is, and where it comes from, that it is easy to be confused. Hey, I’m confused when I read so much of that crap and I know exactly where it comes from. That’s how bad it really is out there. So I was not surprised by the article by Greg Satell, “How Technology Enhances Creativity” in which he gives his best college try on the topic and fails. In fact, I couldn’t keep from holding back a slight giggle at the title, seeing as how I know so much about the subject of technology effecting the human mind that at the suggestion of Dr. Itiel Dror, who at the time was a professor of psychology at the University of Southampton in the UK, I created a new term for the subject – technocogninetics. That’s differentiated from cognitive technology by the fact that technocogninetics only cares about how the technology effects human consciousness and isn’t concerned as much with feedback, where as the academics hijacked cognitive technology from its original definition so that it now only refers to mind/machine interactions that involve feedback. So, in other words, when someone makes a statement like, ‘how technology enhances creativity’, they are making a statement on a technocogninetic relationship, whether they know it or not, and I pay attention to see if they have any idea about what they’re talking about. Sadly, Satell doesn’t.

What he does in his article is set-up a list of ideas that he feels defines the creative process. I’ll take ’em as they come –

1. Intent. “It is through forming intent that we establish the constraints under which creativity thrives.”

I could actually end the articles right here. He believes that we need constraints in order for creativity to thrive. That means that he’s completely unfamiliar with free-form, spontaneous, or other unstructured approaches to creativity which means that he’s no expert and so why are we even bothering with him in the first place? OK, class dismissed, unless of course you want to earn extra bonus points by sticking around for the rest of this analysis. Alright, moving on…

2. Searching the Domain.

Essentially, he’s referring to gathering inspiration from your surroundings, which is a given but also not a requirement. I guess he’s not heard of mentally escaping your environment to get creative ideas and inspiration.

3. Tangling Hierarchies: “Truly revolutionary creative acts come from synthesizing across domains, as Picasso did with African and European art or Darwin did by combining insights from economics, geology and biology to come up with his theory of natural selection.”

Again, basically a half-truth. Einstein’s theories didn’t borrow anything and they were the most revolutionary. And this is an important observation – there’s nothing so far here that I would have suggested at a seminar. These are all gimmicks and that’s what people who really don’t understand creativity and where it comes from, resort to. They look at the results of creative people and then think that they can learn something from that. The results are only part of the story. The rest remains in the head of the artist. A very important point that I’ll continue next.

He ends his list there but then he makes another interesting comment:

“We are no longer separated by time and space, but are largely working off of the same massive database. The sum total of human knowledge is merely a few clicks away. Domains are no longer hidden behind barriers of circumstance or tradition, but are accessible to anyone with a search engine.”

Again, ‘yes’ and ‘no’. The fact is that no matter how much he thinks we’re working from the same data base and that everything is accessible to everyone, he misses a very important point. The point is, I don’t care how accessible data is, if you don’t know what you’re looking for, you’re not going to find it. As a professional researcher I have oft times marveled at the successes I’ve had in finding data that has been available to other researchers decades before I ever came upon the scene. I’ll give you some time frames for examples – 1967 – 2003, 1978 – 2006, 1988 – 2003, 322 BC to 2003, 430 BC to 2003. Yeah, those last two are BC (Before Christ) and refer to ideas from Aristotle and Zeno that I was able to prove wrong. The info to do it was there all along, FOR CENTURIES but hey, who’s complaining, right? My point is that this goes to something that I’ve commented on before, been awarded for proving before and I presented in a paper on it at the 2014 100 Year Starship Symposium, and that is the power of modes of perception. Ever hear of not being able to see the forest for the trees? I bet Satell hasn’t or he forgot about it, because that little saying renders the importance of his idea of data access, null and void. Let me put it another way – with all the spying and surveillance going on, the biggest problem in the intel business is HUMINT. That’s Brotherhood talk for Human Intelligence. In other words, having enough people to sift through all that crap to find what you need, not just what you’re looking for because you could be looking for the wrong thing, thinking that you’re on the right track. Access to data is only half the battle, and it’s not the half that will win you the war.

The rest of the article diverges from this main theme and actually covers some issues that I have no problems with. When he wraps it up at the end, however, he makes a comment that echoes what I’ve just said, which makes me think that he doesn’t really understand what he’s even talking about –

“The fact that everyone has access to a wealth and diversity of ideas and the means to actualize intent means that we all can be more creative. As Jaron Lanier put it, “in a virtual world of infinite abundance, only creativity could ever be in short supply.”

The quote from Lanier, reinforces my point about access to data – that even with an infinite abundance of it, there’s no guarantee that creativity will increase, yet Satell prefaces that quote with the statement that means “we can all be more creative”. Yes, we can, but it doesn’t mean that we will be, and that’s what I address – how to be. Mind you, I don’t in my blogging because that is end product material that I only cover in seminars, but I make it perfectly clear that I know enough about the process that makes all of this fluff that is promulgated out there, appear clearly to me as the perfumed refuse that it is. But I do want to contribute the video below as another viewpoint that I felt was well worth the 19 minutes for you to view, if you want to understand more about creativity. You might say it’s getting my tacit approval, which is saying a lot, as I spent about an hour for something to insert in here as I like embedding videos to make my point. This was the hardest task so far with this blog. Of everything I looked at, I felt that Gerard Puccio’s talk at TEDx Gramercy was the best, stressing that we all have creativity, why we don’t use it, the importance of it, and more.

 

 

Advertisements

I’m Back – With A VENGEANCE!

If you looked around at all, you’ll notice I haven’t posted anything here in about 3 years and for very good reason. Unlike other people who write about innovation, I actually do it and I do it in areas in which I have few if any peers. That being said, it’s a lot of work. What have I been doing for 3 years? I’ve written 2 books, Paradox Lost: The True Geometries of Time Travel and Space Warps and Time Tunnels: The Outrageous Legacy of One Stephen W. Hawking

I’ve launched the first warp drive development program as well as the first human time travel program and a reality TV movie spin-off called The Zeitnauts which will be time travel fans getting to be involved in real attempts to induce time slips using technology derived from ideas of Nikola Teslsa and John Archibald Wheeler. That’s right – time travel.

I created the Zeitnauts project in part as a reaction to Shawn Ryan lying about how serious the writers of NBC’s Timeless take the science part of time travel and how he dissed fans of the show who happen to take time travel as a serious topic for physics. After I baited him into a Twitter fight over it and kicked his ass, I decided that Timeless was a lost cause but that the idea of time travel fans getting involved in real life time travel research as a reality TV show, would be far more intriguing than any Hollywood B.S from writers who wouldn’t know a wormhole from the man hole. I’m now preparing for the first ZeitNauts event to take place in late winter, 2018 with a special event to upstage the premiere of Timeless‘s stunted 2nd season.

I’ve out-innovated everyone else in the entire field on that one, now the world’s leading expert on the time travel topic and a top writer on the subject at Quora.com where I’ve launched a most ambitious blog  – Preparation Diary of a Time Travel Scientist  on my plans to reestablish my life in the 1971 where I will connect with people I know in the entertainment industry and change the world, a little bit. I have come to loathe the way that so-called thought leaders have sold us all down a futuristic drain to the sewer – everything from driverless cars and simulation theory to AI and transhumanism, and the only option, considering my tremendous abilities and technological expertise, is to apply everything I can to time travel to the past, much like those two Silicon Valley billionaires who are funding research to escape what they erroneously believe is a simulated universe. In that regard, I proved this year that parallel universes are real, working in part off of the 1995 proposal of Rainer Plaga. In doing so I outdid Nobel Prize winner, Frank Wilczek and Tulane University’s Frank Tipler. Even more, I proved wrong CERN’s Mir Faizal, who claimed that the parallel universes of quantum mechanics weren’t testable and only philosophical, while he was going to find “real universes” in higher dimensions. He failed, of course. 

Along the way I’ve made plenty of enemies that I’ve clashed with, some I’ve vanquished, and others are waiting for the final showdown with me. I could go into it now, but I’m saving it for later. There’s exciting and drama ahead, I promise. I will say you should check back Thanksgiving Day for the latest on my now all out war with Ronald Mallett, who you read about my beating in a race to develop the first small scale time machine. Mallett and his allies, are about to learn why it means something to screw over Marshall Barnes. The name of that Innovation Excellence Innovation Cities layout of mine wasn’t called, From the Rebellion VS. The Empire to Alexander the Great for nothing.

Slide #1 FRvETATG

I’ve already destroyed one of Mallett’s strongest allies and I’m launching a major attack against the other on Black Friday. Only those closest to me thought I could win this conflict. I was outnumbered, out-resourced. Many times to one. Mallett and his allies had scoffed at me. But I grew-up with the stories about Alexander the Great who was also always outnumbered and out-resourced. Now Mallett’s career is nearly in ruins, but I won’t stop until it is totally and completely destroyed. He is such a fraud, con artist and liar, I can do nothing less and still win. I’m winning because I used a competitive strategy based on Alexander the Great’s battle plan at Gaugamela.

 

So having done all of this, with major plans coming together for a future that many would deem to be straight out of science fiction, is there little doubt as to why I can look down my nose at these posers and pretenders, that claim to know so much about innovation, but have nothing significant to show for it but a lot of hype and how-to books?

Check back at least once a week from now on. This will be one of my major platforms for projection of my campaign for disruption across the forces of entrenched elitism and digitalcentrism to create a chance for true freedom of creative thought and innovation.

 

A Critical Analysis of Ronald L. Mallett, PhD: How Motherland Magazine Was Seduced by The “Crazy Professor”

Copyright November 22, 2017 All Rights Reserved

World Patent Marketing tweet featuring stolen image from web site documenting Ronald Mallett’s losing race against me.

 

This article is about the most futuristic subject, which is also the most misunderstood, and yet closer than most could ever imagine. It is also about the man who, though he claims to be its leading researcher, has in fact done it – and all of us who actually work in the field, the most disservice. It’s also about how the media has been duped into promoting this sham, adding fuel to the fire as to why people don’t trust the media anymore. Written with a unique perspective, having full knowledge of Ronald L. Mallett and his theories, from personal experience and research, dating back to 2007, it is but a singular example of how the future you’re often sold, is a retread of back dated, false promises.

I promoted Mallett in live events, appeared with him on radio and in a scientific panel discussion on time travel, and having had a number of conversations and correspondence by email, I can say that Ronald Mallett’s grasp of the subject of time travel was never impressive, although he seemed confident at the time that he had discovered a working solution that would enable him to send subatomic particles into the past. My impression was that his grasp, overall, of time travel as a concept was on par with what I believed to be the average, conservative physicist. In other words, limited by mathematical constructs found in the theories of Relativity, because Einstein’s work is considered “safe”. That level of comprehension is inferior to mine, as I had long integrated quantum theory into my knowledge concerning time travel, as in fact, it is not entirely uncommon knowledge that, in 1992, my informal mentor into quantum mechanics had been Dr. Fred Alan Wolf, author of the book, Parallel Universes: The Search for Other WorldsSo by 2007, I was beyond Mallett’s level of understanding. Today, I’m literally light years beyond where I was in 2007. However, Ronald Mallett has remained the same.

Since arriving on the public scene with the New Scientist magazine cover article, Flashback: Introducing the World’s First Time Machine, in 2002, Ronald Mallett has beguiled the media and public with his self-proclaimed personal quest to make time travel a reality by building the world’s first time machine. The truth is, he’s built his reputation up with absolutely nothing – trading on the lies that others have willingly told for him, misrepresentations that he has endorsed, and The Lavin Agency’s willingness to always promote him with less than the truth.

This is a critical review of an interview done with Mallett and published the very month that the beginning of the end began for him, by the Federal Trade Commission raiding the Miami headquarters of his latest and greatest ally, Scott J. Cooper’s World Patent Marketing. Motherland Magazine published an article on their web site titled, The ‘Crazy Professor’ Makes A Time Machine (it originally appeared at the URL http://www.motherlandmagazine.com/ronald-mallett/ but at the time of this publication, it, nor any other articles, seem to be available. However, you can see a web archived version at https://web.archive.org/web/20170624062711/http://www.motherlandmagazine.com/ronald-mallett/ where I suggest you read it and compare with what I’m telling you right now). The spelling style is British.

The headline itself is an exercise in contradictions. Though Mallett may act crazy, in that he actually believed that he could carry off a world-class fraud and get away with it, the rest of the title explains why – it’s a lie. Ronald Mallett has never, and will never, make a time machine. He’s not on the verge, hasn’t started, isn’t building nor will he ever do the things that the media seems so willing to attribute to him, though they are patently and demonstrably false. When I say that, I mean in a court of law  – right nowMotherland is no different, just as susceptible to Ronald Mallett’s skills as a con artist as BloombergCNN, CNN International, the Wall Street Journal, Boston Phoenix, Epoch Times, Washington Post, Metro International, Indie Wire, Hartford Courant, The Daily Express, ABC News, Boing Boing, Popular Mechanics, The MarySue, Altoona Mirror, Chicago Tribune, Watertown Daily Times, NBC Chicago, Los Angeles Times, NPR News and many, many others.

Motherland editor, Ravina Rawal, who describes herself as usually having a tough time with multiplication tables, said she had to take two weeks off for a crash course in quantum physics and Albert Einstein, in order to properly understand what Ronald Mallett “plans to do with the time machine he’s building”. She failed. You will see later in this interview that it certainly wasn’t enough. This, of course, sets the perfect stage for Ronald Mallett – an interview with a person with zero practical understanding of the subject at hand and willing to stretch the truth for expediency. I can justify that comment about her – right now. I just quoted her statement in the opening of her article, written after she had interviewed Mallett. As you’ll see by the end of mine – there no evidence that he is building a time machine at all.    

If you believe the media, and the statements of the Lavin Agency that represents him, Ronald Mallett has been building a time machine for at least 17 years and yet is no closer to actually starting than he was 17 years ago. He’s the embodiment of a Zeno’s paradox – in order to build a time machine he must finish and in order to finish he must be almost done, and in order to be almost done, he has to be nearly done and in order to be nearly done – he’s been half way there, and if he’s been half way there it means he has to have started and to have started it means that he’s been on the verge and that’s exactly where he’s been all this time. Like a figure seen from outside the event horizon of a black hole, who remains forever visible on the edge. Forever on the verge, but never seen crossing over. In other words, he’s all talk and no action, unless he’s about to talk some more. Motherland Magazine published the article with Ravina’s questions in all caps. I’ll just reproduce their format for expediency’s sake.

I THINK TO EVEN BEGIN A CONVERSATION WHERE WE’RE TALKING ABOUT TRAVELLING THROUGH TIME, WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT TIME REALLY IS. SO FIRST I’D LIKE TO GET YOUR UNDERSTANDING/DEFINITION OF TIME — IS IT A STRAIGHT LINE ARROW? AN INFINITE SERIES OF MULTIVERSES? WHAT?

Instead of just giving a straight answer, Mallett immediately launches into a strategy that I have seen him use time and time again – open up with a barrage of non-related facts.

“Okay, the thing is… time is one of those elusive things…”

Instead of just answering the question about what time is, he begins with a non-answer, which is immediately problematic because if he can’t just answer the question, it means he doesn’t know the answer and if he doesn’t know the answer – then how could he even be considering building a machine that’s going to manipulate something that he doesn’t understand? That answer’s easy – he’s not.

It takes him 12 whole sentences to not only not answer the question but to lead into his other standard, canned spam – the story of how his father’s death so depressed him as a child that when he learned about the concept of time travel from a H.G. Wells comic book, and then the alleged solutions in Einstein’s theory of Relativity that could allow for time travel, he was inspired to become a physicist so he could build a time machine and go back in time to save his father’s life. Quite frankly, I’ve heard the story so many times I couldn’t care less about his father’s death, as cruel as it sounds, because of 2 very good reasons that completely elude the clueless. First, for all the angst and sorrow that he professes that his father’s death caused – which propelled him to become a theoretical physicist in order to build a time machine and go back and save his father, something rings hollow in the story. After some careful investigation, I put my finger on it – it looks too much like a lie. 

This is what I mean – I’m willing to accept when he was a child, that was his original motivation. After he got his PhD, I’m thinking it was not so much anymore, and the reason comes from Mallett’s own statements. A person who’s lying will usually say something in their story that will trip themselves up. With Mallett, you have to begin with his story as a child after his father’s death. What does he say? It was the H.G. Wells comic book of The Time Machine that inspired him. What was that story about? An inventor who builds a time machine. What’s Mallett do? Does he learn theoretical physics as a minor but pursue a PhD in applied physics or engineering, which would enable him to be like the hero of the H.G. Wells story that so inspired him? No. He gets his PhD in theoretical physics which gives him none of the thinking skills for machine design and the reason for that comes from page 165 of his book Time Traveler, the last paragraph – “As a theoretical physicist, I learned long ago that I did not have the aptitude for experimental work. However, the time machine was too important for me to wait until experimenters decided they were interested in my theory…”

This is a very important admission. Notice, he didn’t say he didn’t have any experience in experimental work or lacked the previous desire to do it. No, his words – ” I did not have the aptitude for experimental work“. The aptitude. The Merriam-Webster.com dictionary says ‘aptitude’ is defined as “inclination, tendency; a natural ability : talent; capacity for learning”. So, he didn’t have the ability to do what the hero of the H.G. Wells book did – the book that was his inspiration. He didn’t have what it would take to  design and build a time machine. Now, I know all about his claim of designing his time machine, even if he hasn’t built it yet, but come on. I am an advanced concept science and technology R&D engineer. I’ve not only designed things – I’ve built them, and I’ll deal with Mallett’s design claims later. However, the gravity of Mallett’s admission then distorts the realization of what he was supposed to be doing this for – saving his father’s life in the past.

“‘Everything that I became, the whole of my personality, everything about being a physicist, was based on my love for my father, and my desire to see him again. My whole existence, who I am, is due to the death of my father, and my promise to myself to figure out how to affect time with Einstein’s work as a foundation…I’m the theoretical guy. The experimental physicists will have to take on the daunting – and very expensive – role of testing my theory.”

Oh no, they don’t! That statement, that “the experimental physicists will have to take on the daunting – and very expensive – role of testing my theory”, is Ronald Mallett with his slip showing. The one where he thinks that everything is about him. No one has to prove anyone’s theory – especially if it’s daunting and expensive and no one else even supports it. That’s why it’s best to be able to do your own experimental work, especially if that’s the reason you get involved with a field – to build things!

Well, that’s what Mallett told Rob Waugh, writer for Metro UK. Of course I laugh at it now, because of that last line. It’s so obvious. If he really wanted to do what he says, he wouldn’t leave it to anybody else! He would’ve stopped at nothing, not stopped at the first problem. Ronald Mallett is a damn liar.

ABC News 2009 Father’s Day feature on Ronald Mallett

When Mallett discovered his idea for a time machine wouldn’t provide the result that drove him to become a physicist to begin with, what did he do? Did he go back to the drawing board and figure out where he went wrong? Did he pursue the other theories that could possibly resolve this impasse? No, he didn’t. He just dropped all pretense of trying to reach his goal and used it to market himself in his ever-growing true quest – the quest for fame! So, despite the fact he had made his alleged research personal, about he and his father, and it’s a major part of any lecture he gives and is even why Spike Lee got interested enough to buy the rights to Mallett’s story – there is no evidence at all of Mallett’s sincerity in ever trying to save his father in the past, once he figured out his first and only time machine design. In other words, Mallett didn’t stop at nothing to figure out a way to get the job done. Oh, no! He didn’t love his father that much. He stopped at the first design flaw, and called it “a career”. Later, we will see why his design was doomed from its very conceptualization. In more ways than one.

Ravina then asks, BUT TRAVELLING BACKWARD AND FORWARD IN TIME ARE TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CONCEPTS, CORRECT?

She’s correct in theory, but wrong in detail. Time travel doesn’t actually involve any “travel” in time, something that must be stated to keep the conversation from veering totally off into science fiction misconceptions. But Mallett doesn’t correct her because he doesn’t realize it himself. The problem is simple, yet apparently beyond the mental grasp of most. Space and time are connected, that’s how we have the space-time continuum. Everything, on all levels, is moving through space and connected to every point in space – at all levels, is time. So, everything is always moving through time. The common question is ‘how do we get back to an earlier time?’ That requires thinking on a higher level, that Mallett has demonstrated repeatedly, he lacks the proclivity for. I won’t go into the answer here but I’ll refer you to my response on Quora.com to the question, “Why Can’t We Make Time Machines?”. There you will see everything that Ronald Mallett is ignorant of, including how he could go back in time to save his father’s life, and it has nothing to do with Einstein or Mallett’s design.

“Oh, that’s right, that’s exactly right. Einstein developed two separate theories — one of the theories was called the Special Theory of Relativity, and in this Einstein said that time could be affected by speed…” as Mallett continues with his canned Einstein response. Seriously, if you’ve heard one Ronald Mallett lecture, you’ve heard them all. The same for his interviews for the most part, and there’s only one main reason for that – he’s never done any new work since 2002 or so. I’m not kidding. Nor has he published a single paper on time travel physics. Don’t believe me? Look at his own web site at UConn –http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~mallett/main/papers.htm.  Then check out the updated version at https://physics.uconn.edu/ronald-mallett/ . He doesn’t even list time travel as a research interest anymore! His interview with Motherland has a few new twists, which I believe were because of upcoming competitive pressure from me that was happening at the time. You’ll see where. However, I’m getting ahead of myself…

OKAY, SO NOW HOW DOES EINSTEIN’S SECOND THEORY — THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY — COME IN?

It is here where Ronald reveals the extent to which he is willing to bend the truth – and get everyone else to, in order to maintain what I call the Mallett Myth – the idea that he is a genius who discovered the solution to practical time travel to the past from Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, when everyone else had failed.

“Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity is actually the core of my work, because what I wanted to do was use gravity to manipulate time — and this was where my breakthrough came…”

Mallett enjoys tossing Einstein’s name around. He feels that it gives him credibility as well as cover, so he can say what he has many times – “This isn’t Ronald Mallett’s theory of time travel, this is from Einstein.” The irony of course is that it was a November 2015 article written for PBS NewHour – TVs, radar guns and other technologies linked to Einstein’s theories of relativity, by Nsikan Akpan, where Mallett inadvertently exposed himself as a fraud. In other words – he really didn’t solve Einstein’s equations so that he could build a time machine, at all. Why? His math was wrong.

“Another barrier to time twisting is energy.” Akpan writes. “The juice required for prototype’s ability to twist space would be 23.9 Joules — about as much power as 24 mile per hour baseball pitch. But the energy for twisting time would be off the charts.”

What happens next was an Earth shattering moment for anyone versed in Mallett’s highly rote story of his breakthrough, the celebrated sign of his supposed genius.

“That on the surface appears to require an enormous amount of energy. I mean a huge amount of energy, like stellar quantities,’ Mallett said. However, twisting space may serve as the foundation for a warp drive.”

That’s right. And to be sure, I called Akpan up and asked him if Mallett really said that, and he assured me that Mallett did. In order to twist time – now Mallett says it will require “stellar quantities” of energy. That means, according to what he’s saying now, that it’s near impossible to do. Just like all the other time machine designs and ideas based on Relativity theory like J.R. Gott’s cosmic stringsKip Thorne’s wormhole mouths and Frank Tipler’s Tipler Cylinder. In other words, Mallett is admitting that there’s nothing special or particularly possible, about his idea over any of the previous ones. Nothing. Not one damn thing!

This requires a moment of reflection as the gravity of this admission must be fully appreciated. This means Ronald Mallett had no “breakthrough” despite what he told Ravina. That was a slip-up from his carefully prepared schtick that he’s used to saying for years. Because the entire story of Mallett’s so-called brilliance was that he had found solutions in Einstein’s equations that did not require massive amounts of energy. That was it. I want to say this again – the entirety of why Ronald Mallett has been worshipped, even intimated by some that he is a genius of time travel, not only that – depicted as the father of time travel in Ben Bowie’s now false documentary, The World’s First Time Machine, is because he claimed to have found solutions in the equations of Einstein’s General theory of Relativity and yet – in 2015 he admitted that he was wrong. That means he isn’t brilliant, since that was his only evidence for being so. Despite that, he told Ravina, in this article published in March of this year, 2017, about his “breakthrough” when there was none. It was a mistake, but not one that he wasn’t warned about.

In 2005, physicists Ken Olum and Allen Everett wrote, Can a circulating light beam produce a time machine? whose abstract states – “In a recent paper, Mallett found a solution of the Einstein equations in which closed timelike curves (CTC’s) are present in the empty space outside an infinitely long cylinder of light moving in circular paths around an axis. Here we show that, for physically realistic energy densities, the CTC’s occur at distances from the axis greater than the radius of the visible universe by an immense factor. We then show that Mallett’s solution has a curvature singularity on the axis, even in the case where the intensity of the light vanishes. Thus it is not the solution one would get by starting with Minkowski space and establishing a cylinder of light.”

That was in 2005, before his book even came out. What was Mallett’s response at the time? According to the Wikipedia article, “However, he does not provide any additional argument as to why we should expect to see closed timelike curves in a different spacetime where there is no line source, and where the light is caused to circulate due to passing through a physical substance like a photonic crystal rather than circulating in a vacuum due to the curved spacetime around the line source.”

What this means is that Mallett’s work, based on the use of his precious Einstein’s theory of General Relativity, is B.S. and he knew it in 2005, two years before I met him. More than that, physicist J.R. Gott of Princeton shot down another aspect of Mallett’s “breakthrough”, the idea that his concept would work if the speed of light could be slowed down by passing it through a medium. Gott pointed out that light slows down in water but that doesn’t “mean that you age more slowly while scuba diving or that it is easier to twist space-time underwater.” Another example of Mallett’s lack of aptitude showing. In response to Gott’s criticism, Mallett wrote in his book, “For a time, I considered the possibility that slowing down light might increase the gravitational frame dragging effect of the ring laser… Slow light, however, turned out not to be helpful for my research.” In other words, his lack of aptitude caused him to not see the difference until Gott pointed it out. 

“Like Einstein, I’m a theoretical physicist, I use equations to try to describe the world. And in physics, there’s a big division of labour between theoretical physicists (who use equations) and experimental physicists (who use equipment to verify our theories).”

Again, with the Einstein. I could be mistaken, but I don’t think I’ve ever read about another physicist telling an interviewer, “like Einstein, I am a theoretical physicist…” But again, it is in the part that follows that his lack of aptitude shows, but only to those of us with the expertise in the field to see it –

“So eventually, as I said, the straight line of time will get twisted into a loop and that’ll allow you to go back into the past. That’s the essence of my work, and that’s actually the sort of experiment that we’ll be looking at.”

This statement is both simplistic and stupid. The simplicity is obvious. Here’s the stupidity –

1. How short is the loop?

2. What happens when the loop is complete?

3. What is the relationship between the length of the loop (its circumference) and the amount of time that it will go to the past?

4. Is there a way out of the loop?

These are just a few of the pertinent questions that should’ve been asked and I could continue, but I think I’ve made my point. Mallett’s comment says nothing and Ravina’s lack of knowledge on the subject is more than apparent here, illustrating a point I’ve been making on Quora.com for a while now – temporal mechanics is not a logical art. If you don’t know it, you can’t guess it. Because Ravina doesn’t know anything, but the most shallow and pedestrian factoids about time travel, she let that comment by Mallett slide right by, which is what he was counting on. After all, his own answers to those questions would reveal his inherent inadequacies on the subject since he’s never satisfactorily answered those, or similar questions – ever.

Her next question is more than significant, because what Mallett says is so far from the truth.

SO YOU’RE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE ABLE TO MOVE THINGS IN EMPTY SPACE IN A WAY THAT YOU WEREN’T ABLE TO BEFORE. THIS WILL AFFECT A LOT OF THINGS…

“Absolutely, and one of the effects of this is going to be important — it’s going to affect communication in a rapid way…What happens if you could not only push information through space, but with space? My work will be a breakthrough in information transfer…This really is going to revolutionise communication.”

At this point, I must pause. I pause because what he has just said either shows how desperate he is to stay relevant, or how far he is willing to lie and deceive. Perhaps both. I’ll explain. It’s really this simple – how is he going to make space move faster than light? That is the only way that he could possibly do what he’s saying. Yes, I realize that he says he’ll “push” space, yeah I get that. But what Ravina and probably most of you don’t get is that first of all, his technological approach won’t “push” anything. Where has he even mentioned that word before in describing his “breakthrough”? Nowhere. Twisting doesn’t involve pushing. It just so happens that I know a lot about this area because this is where I had already produced a technology that produces a specially synthesized, electromagnetic field, that warps space by contraction. It’s an exhibition of Einstein’s theory of teleparallelism, which unifies electromagnetism and gravity – not General Relativity, which demands prohibitive energy requirements to so the same thing.

Mallett saw a video demonstration of it himself in 2007 and it was then, when I mentioned that a physics professor that I knew was suggesting that if we could rotate that field, we could get similar results to what Mallett was talking about, that Mallett had a panic attack. Literally. It was like he was seeing his life pass before him as he stammered out an objection about how I couldn’t do that, and I just told him that it didn’t infringe on his idea at all because I wasn’t using lasers or even the same model of physics as he was. However, the shock to him was so severe, and I, being his host and a moral supporter at that time, quickly calculated in my head that I could continue to concentrate on the application of that technology for space travel if he didn’t take too long in developing what he had already started. I asked if he felt that he could raise the money he needed and complete his research in three to five years. He told me he could. Then I said I’d surrender the field to him so that he could live up to the hype he was getting. He was grateful. But I didn’t know until 2015, that he was a liar, and a con artist and that he hadn’t done any further research at all, and  he’d try to throw me under the bus and was clearly about to engage in fraud with his partnership with Scott J. Cooper of World Patent Marketing – and this idea that he mentioned to Ravina, was part of it. But I digress…

Me shooting an interview with Ronald Mallett the weekend he conned me out of 5 years of my research life.

Next is the fact that communications already move at the speed of light. So in order to make them move faster, he would have to warp space somehow and by ‘warp’, I mean contract it as some medium, doing the contracting, encountered it. The only way that makes any sense at all, is by creating an electromagnetic signal that contracts space as it moves through it and to use that signal as a carrier wave for the information portion, just as what is done in radio. The only way that even has a chance of working is with my technology and I’m not even sure about that. The focus of my technology has always been on the way it can be used to produce a field that produces a gravitic effect as it moves through space, but the way that happens is when the signal it comes from, hits metal that is already moving (as in a fuselage), and then becomes the field that makes it move faster. In outer space, that field could be pulsed and produce a way to theoretically travel faster than the speed of light. However, I never considered the effect of just transmitting the signal as a radio wave (although I had discussed other methods of propagation in the form of photon streams on Researchgate.net, last year) with information piggy backed on to it for communication purposes, but I will now, because I’ve decided to sell it, along with all the other capabilities it has.

However, this gives zero credibility to Mallett’s statements. He doesn’t have my technology and never did. He doesn’t understand it, he just knows that it works and that scares him. He was saying that his approach could get the job done – his way, which is by twisting space. Here again, on full display is his total lack of aptitude in this area. His twisting concept uses lasers and despite the fact that they move at the speed of light, twisting doesn’t add any acceleration to them. In fact, that’s not even a part of his theory. The twisting is supposed to create a loop and that won’t accelerate anything.

Furthermore, the very idea that it takes a rotation to move forward in space is clear evidence of his ineptitude. While that twist is being performed, normal radio waves would be moving without the need for the rotation. Again. This rotation would have to be “pushing space” (or contracting it) to make any difference and there is no apparent way that he proposes doing it.

TO COME BACK TO TRAVELLING BACK IN TIME AND FORWARD INTO THE FUTURE BEING DIFFERENT CONCEPTS — IS ONE GOING TO BE EASIER THAN THE OTHER? COULD I TRAVEL TO ANOTHER TIME AND STAY THERE INDEFINITELY?

“Going back to the past requires a lot more energy, and a lot more technique. What we’re hoping is that as we develop this, we’ll learn what we need to overcome the energy barrier to go back into the past.”

That, again, is an admission that Mallett really hadn’t made a breakthrough, despite years and years of media accolades for an accomplishment yet to accomplished. What did Ravina say at the beginning of her article? That he was building a time machine? He doesn’t even know how it’s going to work anymore!

SO WHERE DO THINGS STAND RIGHT NOW?

“The thing is that this takes [a lot of] money. But something exciting happened to me recently. There’s a major worldwide organisation called World Patent Marketing (WPM), which became interested in my work and invited me to join the advisory board…

Mallett goes into what a  wonderful group of visionaries of science and technology, that World Patent Marketing are. The truth is that Scott J. Cooper, CEO of WPM, was already getting sued by some of his patent customers before this interview was published and by the time it had been released online, the FTC had already stepped in and raided the place. 

“The total amount to accomplish everything we are hoping to, both with space manipulation and time manipulation is probably going to be about $500 million, altogether”.

$500 million indicates to me that Scott J. Cooper was planning on defrauding Silicon Valley level billionaires, or groups of multimillionaires and Mallett was going along for the ride. Mallett had already started a company, Time Travel Technologies, with Cooper, which was registered with the state of Florida and then was brought under the WPM umbrella.

“So $500 million is a bargain! I mean, you’re talking about something that has practical applications, that could actually directly affect all of our lives, and revolutionise how we live. Once again, WPM has allowed this develop this, so it’s really very, very exciting for me. And we’re going to keep things very transparent, and involve the people…”

That’s another lie. Keep things transparent? They couldn’t even keep them transparent in their fundraising effort – there’s a screen where they used an ABC News story about scientists considering the possibilities of time travel, but Scott Cooper’s cronies made it appear as though the story was about Mallett’s research. In fact, Mallett’s not mentioned anywhere in the story and you can see for yourself at http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98062&page=1. Their fundraising video, promoting a “theoretical commodity” called Time Travel X, was being promoted as a way to invest in time travel but have the investment linked to the value of Bit Coin. In reality, the value was linked to the perceived value of Ronald Mallett’s non-existent research which I was going to crush with real developments Mallett couldn’t match. When Cooper and Mallett actually launched Time Travel X for $799, I immediately contacted the Florida’s AG’s office with a full-blown report, citing multiple possible infractions of the Florida state law 817.06, against misrepresentation in advertising, not knowing that the FTC was already moving in against WPM and Cooper for the same reasons, concerning his patent promotion schemes. The AG’s office informed me that my report was being sent to the FTC investigators, one of whom later told me that in a deposition, Cooper said, “What? You didn’t really think we were going to make a time machine did you? No, we were going to develop the spin-off technologies for communications!” Now a judge has shut down FTC pending the trial and with it, any significant chance of Mallett ever getting funded.

 

Evidence of FRAUD. A screen grab from the World Patent Marketing site where they had started to offer Time Travel X for the price of $799 per unit. However, the basis on which it was being offered was rife with lies, which the Florida AG’s office saw fit to send to the Federal Trade Commission.

 

Video clip in which Mallett makes a big deal of the idea of sending binary code to the past, forgetting completely that the neutrons he would be sending would be undetectable by any one without a neutron detector…

Caught on tape: Ronald Mallett thinks he’s making a valid point about parallel universes – clueless to the research of German astrophysicist, Rainer Plaga, that pointed to the way of detecting them without having a time machine.

SO YOU’RE GETTING READY TO MOVE FROM THE THEORETICAL TO EXPERIMENTAL PHASE, TO ACTUALLY TEST YOUR THEORIES AND GET A DEVICE GOING. DO YOU HAVE A DESIGN IN PLACE?

Motherland Magazine is an Indian firm and this allows Mallett to point out that his technical assistant, a laser expert named, Chandra Roychoudhuri, is originally from India. Then he prattles on about how they’re going to build his stack of ring lasers. I’ve heard it all before.

I KNOW HE WAS THE MOTIVATION BEHIND ALL THIS, BUT NOW THAT YOU’RE CLEARER ABOUT WHAT’S POSSIBLE AND/OR EASIER, ARE YOU STILL LOOKING AT RECONNECTING WITH YOUR FATHER? OR ARE YOU SAYING THAT WE’RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO MOVE BACK IN TIME LIKE THAT?

Here is one of the few places where Mallett deviates from his previous protocols, again, I believe due to the pressure from my competition.

“There’s going to be a limitation, which we may find that we are able to overcome. One of the things that I’ve been looking at is recently is how quantum physics is affecting all this. What I’ve been talking about so far is pure relativity; when we bring quantum physics into the picture, normally there would be a limitation…”

Here’s why that is just so much BOLLOCKS! I knew about the quantum mechanics as applied to time travel back in the ’90s. Remember, my physics mentor was Fred Alan Wolf? I first met him in ’92. I talked with Mallett about this issue back in 2007. WHAT THE HELL?! It’s 2017 and he’s just now considering it?! He’s a LIAR!  Remember? The reason to build a time machine was supposed to be to go back in time and save his father! Since quantum mechanics was the way to get around it – WHAT’S HE BEEN WAITING FOR?! I’ll tell you – again it’s the pressure from me that he’s going to have to do something, anything to maintain his relevance. He doesn’t give a damn about saving his father – he just cares about saving his publicity profile!

He prattles on describing the potential effects of the Uncertainty Principle on attempts at time travel and other details that were sure to go over Ravina’s head, once again. Then he says,”but I’m just beginning my research on that aspect, it’s still developing… but how much that can be modified, and in what way, that’s what I’m looking at right now.”

No, he’s not or he would’ve done it years ago! The reason why he hasn’t done anything about it is because he’s been clinching that life-preserver that he sees Relativity as. As long as he could hide behind the name of Einstein, he felt safe.  Now, the pressure is on. Again, he knows breakthroughs are on the way that don’t have a thing to do with him, and he needs to come up with something.

AND WHAT ABOUT TRAVELLING TO THE FUTURE? WOULD THAT BE OPEN ENDED?

“Yes, right now you can go as far as you like into the future, indefinitely, there’s no limit there.”

Again, not true! First of all, barring various methods of suspended animation, there’s no practical method of using Relativity to go to the future. None. Especially with no limit. I’ll give him limits –

1. You need a space program of your own. NASA won’t help. So there’s that and the cash to pay for it.

2. The farther you want to go into the future, the longer you’ll have to be in space flight and that’s going to cost you in fuel.

3. Even with the benefit of time dilation, that will slow the aging rate for you once you’re in flight, there’s a limit. The faster you go, the more fuel you’ll burn and you’ll need to go as close to 40% the speed of light before you hit that gravity well that happens as you approach the speed of light. Big problem though – the Helios 2, launched by NASA, flies around 250,000 kilometers per hour, and it’s only about 0.02% of the speed of light. So forget about it. General Relativity is no better, as I’ll deal with later. The point I’m getting at is Mallett, nor any of the mainstream physicists hawking theories of Relativity, are doing anything at all with practical time travel science. Not one. They don’t even know what it is.

SINCE THERE’S NO TELEPORTING INVOLVED — WHICH WOULD ALLOW YOU TO MOVE PHYSICALLY FROM ONE SPACE TO ANOTHER — WHAT TIME TRAVEL IMPLIES IS THAT YOU’RE STANDING IN THE SAME PLACE, AND THIS IS ALL ONLY AFFECTING YOUR BODY. HOW DO YOU INTERACT WITH THE NEW TIME YOU’RE IN?

This question is a sure sign that Ravina is missing something in her comprehension of what’s going on. “Standing in the same place and this is all only affecting your body?” makes no sense on its face and I don’t know how she would even think that. Just as a quick aside, time travel, the real practical type under development now, affects your body by suddenly translating you into the new result of that time travel. Outside observers would see you disappear suddenly, but it isn’t quite teleportation…

“Okay, what we’d be able to do is…if you turn it on the [time machine] and leave it on for 100 years, then people 100 years from now can send back information all the way back to any point in the timeline up till the moment the machine was switched on…So the way I like to say it, is that our descendants will be able to communicate with us, but we won’t be able to communicate with them.”

AND IF YOU STEP OUTSIDE OF THE VORTEX THE TIME MACHINE IS CREATING, YOU COULD INTERACT WITH OTHER PEOPLE IN THAT TIME? IS THAT IT?

“Absolutely. As soon as you step outside the region that’s being affected by the device, you can rejoin everyone else. As long as you decide, well, I’m not gonna stay here 100 years, maybe 50, you could do that.”

Nonsense! This is an other issue that was brought up at MarCon in 2007, to which Mallett had no answer. Again, it goes to engineering and design. For a human size version of this thing, how do you step outside a vortex that’s being created by LASERS?! What about the radiation? Mallett shrugged it off as simply an engineering problem to be solved and acted as though it doesn’t affect the validity of his idea. Yeah, right…

WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS — ETHICAL, UNINTENDED — OF BEING ABLE TO CHANGE THE PAST BY TRAVELLING DOWN THE TIMELINE? ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT THE BUTTERFLY EFFECT/CHAOS THEORY?

This is where it is very clear that Ravina has done no serious studying of the subject, at all, and is relying on what she knows from pop culture.  The butterfly effect is overrated and not understood by people like Ravina who go around quoting it. Edward Lorenz, the man it’s attributed to, stated, “‘If the flap of a butterfly’s wings can be instrumental in generating a tornado, it can equally well be instrumental in preventing a tornado.’ And that would be impossible for us to know.” My point being is that all of us, everyday, cause a butterfly effect in one way or the other. We just don’t think about it. I studied it in the ’90s when I was learning about quantum mechanics. The net result is that people get bent out of shape when it gets applied to time travel because they think it will change history. It doesn’t matter because any changes that happen won’t be to their history.

Mallett’s response illustrates just why he’s out of his depth –

“…Yes, unintended consequences could occur, and that will be an important factor… because once we can travel back, we could in fact potentially affect things that will change our timeline.”

Never mind the fact that this patently false, just remember that he’s said it.

“It will have beneficial effects — imagine if we could warn ourselves of tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes; think of the thousands of lives we could save… ”

This is it – where Mallett proves he lacks the brains for time travel and should just get the Hell out of it. Let me explain – if we warn ourselves in the past about something that has already happened, why didn’t we do it before it happened the first time, for us? Because it hadn’t happened yet. So from the stand-point of being in the past, how is it that we could be getting a message from the future – warning us? Using linear thinking, it makes no sense on that level alone – never mind the geometry that it describes which would allow for the kind of feedback energy build-up that Stephen Hawking invokes as part of his chronology protection conjecture. The simple fact is that it’s missing the FAOC – First Action of Cause that I described in Paradox Lost. In other words, the first point of action. Mallett’s describing an endless loop and doesn’t even realize it. The model for time travel I advocate, using the work of John Archibald Wheeler and Hugh Everett and others, resolves this nonsense but it also rules out the need to fund Mallett’s idea because of its other technical issues.

“People might decide that they want to change things for their own personal benefit, and that would affect everyone else. There’s going to have to be some serious regulations for time travel…it’s going to require worldwide cooperation at the level of, like, the UN.”

Yeah, right. That’s why I wrote my report, Paradox Lost for selected members of Congress – so they’d know better when they heard crap like this from Ronald Mallett or anyone else. In fact, I put him in the report and why his position is wrong. You see, statements like this are dangerous to time travel research and I didn’t want any threats to legitimate research to happen before it could be used for what I know it’s being developed for in the private sector – escape to the past. The irony is, it appears that Mallett’s own statements like that are what kept him from getting funding from the National Science Foundation! After all, why should they fund something so dangerous!

He then starts talking about the Grandfather Paradox nonsense before getting to the point –

“This is why I said that quantum physics is going to be important to my future research — it seeks to show a way out of that paradox, because it has to do with parallel universes. This notion of parallel universes, by the way, was not developed for time travel, it was actually developed back in 1957 by a man named Hugh Everett III. He was a physicist at Princeton, and what he did was to apply quantum theory to the universe as a quantum whole (we normally apply quantum theory only to different physical systems). ”

Now Mallett is invoking parallel universes which make the things that caused his calls for global regulation of time travel, irrelevant! Remember?

NOW HOW DOES IT APPLY TO TIME TRAVEL?

Mallett tells Ravia about David Deutsch from Oxford University who applied the many-world’s interpretation to time travel and states that, “the moment you arrive in the past, there’s actually a split — you will arrive in a parallel universe in which you could do something like prevent your grandparents from meeting each other, but you will just find yourself in a strange universe in which you were never born…You will have arrived in that other universe, where your grandparents meet each other, have your parents, who have you… so what it says is that when you travel back to the past, you arrive in the past of another universe, so it doesn’t affect anything, it doesn’t create/give you paradoxes.”

Mallett has botched it. First of all, Deutsch said that when you would go back in time, you would be “in the past of another universe” where you could do what you want because there’s be no causal connection to the one you came from. He didn’t say anything about a split and arriving in one where you weren’t born as well (in the grandfather paradox case). In my research for my special report to Congress, I identified a flaw in Deutsch’s thinking due to the fact that there would still be a paradox because you weren’t in that past of a parallel universe before, as a time traveler, either. I solved it by applying John Archibald Wheeler’s Participatory Universe model, and his ‘it from bit’ to the quantum mechanics of the situation to show that you would actually arrive in a new, parallel universe copy of the past that didn’t exist before. This solution resolves, as well, issues dealing with conservation of energy and entropy increase issues. This is the real foundation of time travel, and, if Mallett was as smart as advertised, he could’ve figured this all out back in the ’90s. Good for me he didn’t and now I’ve proved it with a series of physical experiments, but I yet, digress…

WELL, WHAT’S THE POINT OF THAT?

Forget Mallett, for a moment. I’ll answer her question – the point is that’s the way it works in the real world. That’s the science she should have learned when she was looking at the quantum mechanics of the subject. Remember? There is no other way that time travel works out. Maybe if Ravina had done some serious research instead of an obvious pop science crash course, she’d already have known that. Then of course, she’d know that talking to Mallett is a waste of time unless she wanted to ask him some hard questions, instead of this soft ball fluff she was pitching. Then her interview would have had much more original material in it.

“Look, that’s just one possible model… the only way to really tell is when we do the real experiment itself. That’s why I said that when you bring quantum mechanics to the picture… it gets more complicated.”

That’s exactly what he said in The Worlds First Time Machine, when David Deutsch was talking about parallel universes, and at that time travel panel we were on in 2007, and I challenged him there and then to name what other theory that would allow for time travel without paradox that would fit, and he just sat there, dumbfounded. I’ve got the whole thing recorded and will be released as part of an upcoming audio documentary on time travel. Mallett believes his own hype too much – as if we won’t know if parallel universes are real or not until we do his experiment. As I’ve said, I’ve already done it, in part due to the 1995 work of Rainer Plaga.

Photos of Mallett and I in 2007 at the MarCon Science Fiction Convention panel on time travel:

Mallett had gone off the rails so far I finally couldn’t take it anymore

                        Mallett taken back a bit, as I start laying down my expertise on parallel universes and time travel.

 

Notice now, how he begins to scowl. It was the moment he really started realize I wasn’t just some “fan” of the time travel subject, but an expert in my own right, and knew more than he did and I still do.

 

COULD THIS BE CONSIDERED LIFE EXTENSION TECHNOLOGY, IN A SENSE? WHERE PEOPLE DON’T HAVE TO DIE BECAUSE THEY KEEP SKIPPING (BACK AND FORTH) THAT EXACT MOMENT IN WHICH THEY DIE?

“No, you can’t avoid that, no matter what you do.”

Finally Mallett gives a straight, accurate answer. Ravina’s question is prompted in part, I surmise, by the idea of quantum immortality, which suggests that an alternative to every outcome exists in a parallel universe. So, if you die, you live anyway, in a parallel world. That only works so far. If your body starts breaking down with age, eventually the probability of survival everywhere will be zero. Ravina, however, has mangled the question a bit, by asking if people “don’t have to die because they keep skipping (back and forth) that exact moment that they die”. What? If it’s the exact moment that they die, they’re dead and can’t go anywhere. As they say in science circles, that’s not even wrong...

DO YOU HAVE A NAME FOR YOUR DEVICE YET?

“Well, we have the company, which is called Space Time Technologies, because we’re talking about a revolutionary way to affect space, as well as time, and all of the technology that will help with that…”

Actually, that’s not true. First of all, his original name for it was LOTART – Laser Optical Time Machine And Receiver Transmitter. The project was, Space-Time Twisting by Light. I know what he’s talking about. At one point, in a press release, WPM used that name, Space Time Technologies, for the new company but it was never registered. The original company name was Time Travel Technologies and it was never officially changed. Space Time Technologies is owned by Timothy J. Tucker and appears to have no relation with Cooper or Mallett.

I READ SOMEWHERE THAT YOU KEPT YOUR RESEARCH ON TIME TRAVEL SECRET FOR A VERY LONG TIME….

He talks about how he was afraid to let his colleagues know of his interest in time travel for years, until one wanted him to do a lecture on it at the University of Michigan. From that, New Scientist did the cover story that first got Mallett publicity and unfortunately, set the bad standard of giving him undeserved credit. He mentions, New Scientist, but the cover story read, Flashback: Introducing The World’s First Time Machine, an exaggeration of fact, clearly, but it set the precedent. By the time Ben Bowie did his film on Mallett, with that same basic titleThe World’s First Time Machine, it was all down hill from there, with the truth trampled underfoot and no one in the media caring what it was.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE’S WORK IN THIS FIELD THAT YOU THINK IS HEADED IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION AS WELL?

“I should mention that there are other physicists who have looked at time travel, and there are two other main ideas. There’s Kip Thorne [who brought real science to the movie Interstellar], who’s looking at time travel to the past using wormholes, and Richard Gott at Princeton who’s looking at using cosmic strings. So that work’s been going on also.”

Of course he’s not going to mention me, which is fine. He’s an elitist. Although he’ll complain about how hard it was to get recognition in the physics world because he was black, he’ll deal out the elitist privilege card without hesitation when it suits him. Remember. I know him. However, that other work is about as worthless as Mallett’s. No one is going to get a cosmic string and Kip Thorne has more mistakes in his theory on using wormhole mouths for time travel than Mallett does in his theory. A lot more. Like 17. But Thorne isn’t saying that his theory will work, if someone just gives him enough money.

WEREN’T YOU USING YOUR RESEARCH ON BLACK HOLES AS A COVER FOR STUDYING TIME TRAVEL?

“Yes, I kept my time travel research a secret by studying black holes, which is also important… Remember Einstein’s theory says that gravity slows time down? So the closer you get to a black hole, the more time will slow down…So, in a sense, a black hole can act as an actual time machine”.

And that’s also how he knows so little about time travel – because time travel isn’t about General Relativity or black holes. How are you going to study time travel from observing an object that is beyond our reach? The nearest black hole is 1,600 light years away. I’ve already done the calculations – 4,000 years. That’s how long it would take a robotic, or human multi-generational mission, to reach said object, do tests and then for Earth to receive the radio transmitted the results. That’s why any scientist – I don’t care who they are, claiming to know about time travel, that opens their pie hole talking about black holes, just needs to shut up. No one’s doing anything with a black hole.  So he studied black holes. What did it get him? Absolutely nothing, but misled down the wrong rabbit hole and years building a career that’s now on the precipice of total and complete destruction. If Mallett had actually been determined to study time travel, instead of being afraid (after all, he didn’t have to advertise it), he  might actually know something useful by now. The science of time travel is directly related to the confluence of quantum mechanics and information physics. Why didn’t he study those? By now, you should know that answer…

DOES STEPHEN HAWKING KNOW WHAT YOU’RE UP TO?

“[Laughs uproariously] “Yes, as a matter of fact, he actually does! If you look up The Real Story of Time Travel on YouTube, I was on a segment with Stephen Hawking and Richard Gott, and they also had Paul Davies, who’s been an advocate of using wormholes. So they’re… aware of me, yes.”

I looked for this film and there is no record of it anywhere. I checked Youtube, IMDB, and just the web in general. There is no production listed with that name, nor with those physicists all in the same film. I’m not saying that it doesn’t exist but it’s not where Mallett said to look and there is no film listed by that title. However, there’s reason to believe that Mallett was pulling a slight of hand there. I know that the author of the book, The New Time Travelers, David Toomey, told me that both Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne said that they didn’t want to be in his book if he had Ronald Mallett in it. I tested Thorne myself, by sending him an email that asked his opinion of Mallett’s work and if he felt that Mallett would be able to meet the energy requirements for his time machine to work. I was waiting to see if I got some kind of emotional response that would indicate the type of dislike for Mallett, that Toomey implied. I got a terse one word reply – “No”. This incident is recounted, with many additional details, in my 2015 book, Space Warps and Time Tunnels: The Infamous Legacy of One Stephen W. Hawking

Now that doesn’t mean that the film doesn’t exist, as I said, but what it does mean is that Mallett offered evidence that couldn’t be substantiated.

AND…? WHAT DOES HE THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU’RE PROPOSING?

“They think that the mathematics associated with the idea, and the physics of it, is okay, but from the technological standpoint, it’s going be difficult to travel back into the past because the energies that that requires are great. And I agree with them. Travelling back to the past using this is going to be extremely difficult. It’s going to require engineering innovation that will only develop as we develop our research.”

That’s a lie and he knows it. First of all, they don’t agree with his mathematics. Second, there is no engineering solution that will fix it because its design won’t work – even if there were no energy problems. It’s because his model for time is wrong. I proved it, emphatically, in my second paper about his research, The Invalidation of the Time Travel Physics, of the Ronald L. Mallett LOTART Design By The Rachel, Emily and Suzy Experiments of Marshall Barnes, R&D Eng, a devastating technical review of Mallett’s provisional patent application for his time machine design as a method of sending information to the past. An application that he talked about in his book of 2006, but failed to mention that he let it expire. I know. I called the patent office and checked. It’s in my paper. So there is no patent for his design and anyone can use it now, for all it’s worthlessness. But I’m taking it, and converting it into something that might.

Second of all, he admits again that the energy requirements to go to the past (using General Relativity) are going to be great, which means, once again, that all the accolades that he got were unearned. He’s done nothing beyond what any other physicist has proposed!

It also points out how Mallett, in his arrogance and ignorance, ignored other research in the field that could’ve given him a clues on how to build that time machine to see his father – Rainer Plaga’s 1997 paper on how to detect parallel universes. It was the foundation, in part, that led to the new, human time travel theories I covered in my paper, Tim Folger Discovers A Time Machine. Ironically, it involves lasers, meaning if Mallett had actually been studying time travel related science literature, and was a smart as advertised, he could’ve figured out what I know now, in the last century! But, I’m beginning to repeat myself, I fear. Talking about Ronald Mallett causes you to do that…

Second, he told the audience at the 2007 MarCon science fiction convention that it was going to take engineering innovation to solve particular problems back then, but that was when he was saying he wouldn’t have the massive energy requirements. Like I said before, if he had been serious about building a time machine, he would’ve gotten a background in applied physics or engineering. Oh, but that’s right – he didn’t have the aptitude for  it!

ARE THE WORMHOLE AND COSMIC STRING APPROACHES EASIER? I REALLY HOPE YOU ARE ALL RACING EACH OTHER ON THIS, AND THERE’S SERIOUS COMPETITION INVOLVED.

Interesting question, seeing as how Mallett had already lost the race for a time machine device that operates on a small-scale and could be scaled up, and now the ultimate machine is being designed. But Navina, intimating that Mallett is in a competition with Gott and Thorne, is like speculating on which of 3 snails is going to win the next Boston Marathon.

“[Laughs] I think there probably is some competition somewhere, but the nice thing for me is that I’m talking about something I can develop in a lab, as opposed to looking out at space and hoping you can find a cosmic string.”

Again, he goofs up, reverting back to his original shtick. Remember, his November 2015 admission? It will take energy on the level of “stellar quantities” to twist time, using his methods. He can no longer develop his idea in a lab! He can laugh all he wants, but he’s in the same boat now as Gott and Thorne, at least as far as practicality is concerned. However, both those men still have their honor and integrity. Ronald Mallett has none.

LET’S SAY IT WASN’T SO COMPLICATED TO TRAVEL BACK IN TIME, LET’S SAY YOU COULD DO IT. IS THERE ANYONE OR ANYTHING ELSE BESIDES YOUR FATHER THAT YOU’D LIKE TO CONNECT WITH?

I’d want to see some of the great things of the past — I’d like to see what ancient Rome was like, and ancient Egypt…And I love music, one of my favourite composers is Chopin. It would be fun to actually see him perform… What would yours be?

Mallett’s answer is typical of someone who’s never seriously considered time travel to the past and its practical ramifications. He wants to go to ancient Rome and Egypt, for example and yet speaks none of the languages. In order to do either, he would require more than one person expert in the types of language spoken during those eras, the proper currency – either new coins made from the designs of originals or gold, silver or other valuables that would be used for trade, and a security detail. At least Ravina’s idea is more practical.

I’M GOING TO GO WITH MICHAEL JACKSON TILL I’VE HAD TIME TO THINK ABOUT THIS. AND SINCE I DON’T HAVE TO TRAVEL THAT FAR BACK IN TIME FOR THAT, MINE’S EASY. GOOD LUCK WITH ANCIENT ROME.

“[Laughs] But what this shows, is that everyone has some notion of what they would like to do if they could go back to the past or into the future. If things are fascinating now, what’s it going to be like in 100 years?”

100 years indeed. The current research is picking up steam exactly because people doubt that there will be a civilization in 10 years, let alone 100. Two billionaires in Silicon Valley are said to be funding research to figure out a way to escape what they think is a simulated universe. The reason is still the same. We’re all afraid Johnny Rotten got it right. No future. God save the Queen indeed…

Mallett continues on with his wide eyed sales pitch about how great the future could be and then he returns to the subject of World Patent Marketing.

“We take for granted what, for instance, the Wright brothers did, what people like Steve Jobs did… they were all visionaries. This company that I’m now a part of, WPM, they have that visionary outlook as well, and I think that’s the reason why this sort of thing is actually going to happen.”

Of course we know exactly what happened – exactly as I predicted. WPM has been effectively destroyed by the FTC and Time Travel X has gone down with it. Meanwhile, the fall out from the debacle has begun, with the total and complete destruction of Mallett’s career already under way with his deletion from the African American Registry and TEDxVienna and more disgraces to come. Simultaneously, developments in time travel are racing toward fruition without Mallett (or any of the members of the Relativistic fraternity), and the word of his true role with WPM is slowly beginning to spread despite attempts at a cover-up by the Miami New Times, who I know first hand, blatantly obfuscated evidence implicating Mallett in the attempted expansion of Scott J. Cooper’s fraud schemes – evidence that was compelling enough for the Florida Attorney General’s office to forward it to the FTC, as they were shutting down Cooper’s offices.  I know, because I gave the same information, and more, to Miami New Times reporter, Brittany Shammas. What did they do with it? Left out all the facts of his involvement, and made it look like he was a victim as well.  

What kind of evidence? Here’s Mallett on Facebook, promoting Time Travel X in violation of Florida Law 817.06, which covers “an advertisement of any sort regarding such certificate, diploma, document, credential, academic credits, merchandise, security, service or anything so offered to the public, which advertisement contains any assertion, representation or statement which is untrue, deceptive, or misleading”.

Hello Everyone, Yesterday, July 4, was the official project launch announcement for Time Travel Technologies. The World Patent Marketing promotional video for the project can be seen at: http://timetravelx.com
In the coming months project developments will be announced.

Time Travel Technologies Day(s) : Hour(s) : Minute(s) : Second(s) Get Product Launch Updates What if Time Travel wasn’t just an idea? Time Travel X is a theoretical…
TIMETRAVELX.WPENGINE.COM
Here he was on Twitter, encouraging the promotion of the same video, which no longer exists due to the subsequent shut down of WPM.

So, the question is why did the Miami New Times just do a rehash of the WPM scandal story, already covered by the media and ignore the real new story – how the famous Ronald Mallett colluded with WPM CEO Scott J. Cooper in an unlawful attempt to perpetrate an even larger expansion of WPM’s fraudulent activities? Why did the Miami New Times cover-up the evidence and white wash Mallett? To Hell with the Miami New Times. By doing so, they’ve unwittingly enabled Mallett to continue his fraudulent activities and if he gets anymore money – it’s on their heads. I’m branding them with it. They’re now branded as enablers of a proven con artist and fraud whom they’ve protected from public scrutiny. And the media wonders why people don’t trust the media anymore.

Mallett, as he is prone to do, has tossed Cooper under the bus, claiming that months before the FTC take down, he had left the company’s board of director’s, dissatisfied that they hadn’t raised any money for him. The truth is there is no objective evidence for that and as you have read, Mallett was singing WPM’s praises to Narvina. In reality, Mallett barely escaped unscathed, because if any of the Time Travel X units had been sold, he could’ve been charged with theft by deception because of the fraudulent materials used to sell Time Travel X, materials that he himself promoted on Twitter and Facebook. If that had happened, you can bet I’d be testifying as an expert witness against him. That’s how really stupid Ronald Mallett is.

(As an aside, any of you claiming this isn’t true, as Ronald Mallett fans are apt to, I have an entire file of court room ready evidence that I have prepared to use in any legal action that Mallett may use against me or that I may testify in as an expert witness against Scott J. Cooper and Ronald Mallett. A top law firm in the nation’s capital has reviewed it and it is of the quality where I can say these things and level these accusations because the defense against defamation is the truth and, each one of these things I have turns the truth from a defensive tool, into an offensive weapon. Remember – it was good enough for the Florida AG’s office to send to the Federal Trade Commission to begin with, and I have even more – now).

AND WHEN MIGHT THAT BE? WHEN ARE YOU HOPING TO SWITCH THE DEVICE ON?

“Well, what we’re going to do is first just get things started experimentally this year. There will be a big announcement soon to let people know about the beginning and progress of this project.”

And there we have it – once again. The only evidence of time travel on Ronald Mallett’s part – the never-ending, closed time-like curve of his always starting the project and never getting there before he’s getting close to starting it again. Of course now we all know why – because there isn’t any project, because there hasn’t been any valid research, because Ronald Mallett is a fraud and a con artist who admittedly lacks the aptitude to be an experimenter and has proved that he lacked the aptitude to even get his own theory right. And now, WPM has been destroyed, as well.

The only question to be determined is when will the media wise-up and stop contributing to this farce, which makes them look stupid?  The Ronald Mallett story has been the original fake news, regardless of your politics. After all, if the news media keeps reporting the same story, over and over again – that other media have already told for near 20 years now, when does it ever, ever stop being news? But then again, that’s how closed time-like curves act. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. Over and over and over again…

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. I KNOW I TOOK UP MORE THAN I ASKED FOR, BUT MAYBE YOU CAN JUST FIX THAT WITH YOUR RING LASER OR SOMETHING AND PRETEND I DIDN’T.

That shouldn’t be any problem for Ronald Mallett. All he is, and ever has been – with his ring laser, is pretend…

Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, Tide Pods and Foiling the Fans of Failure

I saw a quote one time that really drew the line in the sand for me, in as far as the innovation debate goes. I mean, people can disagree over certain tactics, methodology, whatever and not be worthy of scathing insults. However, when it comes to the topic of failure, that’s when I draw my sword and scratch a line in the sand. If you’re caught on the other side of that line from me, then you’re in big trouble because you represent either the dupes, the stupid frickin’ morons that will repeat the most asinine buzzword phrases without thinking, or you’re one of the posers creating this crap and pushing it, to show how smart you are (NOT).

So what was this quote? It went something like “innovators have the duty to fail, fail fast, fail smart and fail often”. I can’t remember the idiot’s name who said it, but it did cause me to wonder just how long, and how it was even possible, that they had been able to keep their head up inside of that long, dark, tight and musky passageway without becoming brain dead. Oh wait, that quote would indicate that they ARE brain dead! You see, anyone wanting you to fail, is not your friend. I am. I don’t want you to fail, unless of course if you have some evil plot to take over the world or ruin people’s lives, or – well, you get the picture.

Failure is not good, failure is bad. If someone is telling you that you should learn to fail, it’s is only because they have no idea in the entire universe on how to tell you to succeed. Or, they’re just a stupid frickin’ idiot that is passing off what they heard because they lack the necessary grey matter to know bad advice when they hear it. I don’t care who it is pushing the idea either. The first sign, that you should get as far away from a innovation hypester as fast as possible, is the very first instant that they start talking about how to fail. That’s when you smile, politely excuse yourself and get the hell away from them. If they’re promoting failure, you can pretty much forget about having anything to do with them, because their minds aren’t on success.

I recently saw a blog where the blogger was pointing out how the movie Chitty Chitty Bang Bang was a great movie promoting the ideas of innovation. I hadn’t thought of that film much lately, except in passing, because I believe it was on one of the cable channels. I remember going to see it as a child at the theater when it came out, and how it featured a number of my favorite themes – creative eccentricity, the rewards for the individual from a free enterprise system, determination, and the righteous conflict against tyranny and evil. What the blog post reminded me of is how my mom laughed at the group of scientists and inventors who were couped up in the evil baron’s castle – assigned to replicating the Chitty Chitty Bang Bang car. She would laugh and say, “Look at those poor, scroungy old men. They’ve been in there so long trying to make that car and haven’t a clue about what they’re doing, – ‘talking about ‘the roses of success’. They haven’t a chance of being successful at all”. And of course, at the end of the song they perform, about perseverance in the invention process, the car that they’re attempting modify falls apart, emphasizing the fact that, no matter how much they try to rationalize it or put a brave face and a stiff upper lip on their predicament, they are total and complete, utter failures with no chance of success. How could they be? They had no idea how to make a car like Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. In fact, they had never even seen it before.

There is a deliberate sense of irony in the scene that the blogger completely missed. The blogger thought that it was a great scene because it was pushing the idea of not being stopped by failure. Yes, perseverance is important, but what is more important is knowing what the hell you’re supposed to be doing in the first place. Those scientists didn’t! Seriously. In the film, the man that the evil baron wants is not the older gentleman that he has snatched up and tossed in with the old scatter brain scientists. No, it’s his son,  played by my favorite screen father of all time, Dick Van Dyke, but the baron doesn’t know that. Dick’s the one with the real flying car.

So what’s wrong with this whole idea of smart failing, an oxymoronic term cooked up by one Stefan Lindegaard (whom I’ll be taking to task in another post)? If you apply the idea of failure to most professions, then it is the thing that holds you back from success. It has a price that comes with it. If you try to down play it, then you’re setting yourself up for disaster. But forget my opinion, let’s look at some facts. GM had to recall million of cars because of ignition failures. There was property damage involved as well as bodily injury. This failure will cost GM millions and I’d love to see  one of the failure promoters, explain why this was a good thing, to someone who’s car had been effected by this recall, or worse. But since then, there’s been something even more disastrous, and I’m going to analyze it very closely.

You may not have known this, but the boys and girls in the laundry detergent biz have been busy, innovating

Ah, but there’s something more here than just product quality. If you haven’t guessed it yet, here’s a hint –

I don’t know if you’ve heard, but there’s have been thousands of cases where children have gotten their little hands on Tide Pods and have become ill. In the case of this one 7 month old, the little boy died – http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2013-08-15/news/os-detergent-pod-death-child-20130815_1_detergent-laundry-7-month-old-boy. Now this is a perfect case of what I’m talking about. The failure fans would say, “Well, this is certainly an opportunity to learn from this unfortunate situation and rethink packaging”. There are even some people who blame the parents for not being sure that the product was out of reach of children at all times. Before I comment, let’s listen to this real-life mom explain how this product works, as her children play with it nearby (watch how many times one of them puts it up to their mouth). Notice how she makes sure that this new product isn’t just viewed as a new product, but an INNOVATION!:

Oh look – even their commercial looks colorful and sounds like there’s children singing in the background –

Oh, but guess what? There’s been a FAILURE!

And of course this kind of failure lends itself to potential for a lawsuit –

http://www.aboutlawsuits.com/tide-pod-detergent-poisoning-risk-package-changes-51054/

Well, it would appear that the laundry companies are learning a lesson from their latest “innovation”, but not to worry because after all, this failure did happen pretty fast and it wasn’t even a complete failure after all. The product works, it’s just that the packaging failed…

So, we know what happened, but how would it have been any different if I, or someone I had trained, been involved? Well, if I had trained the innovation team, they never would have come up with this moronic idea in the first place. I’m not talking about the Pod but how it looks, was marketed, etc. Only an idiot would design a potential poisonous substance that would be around children, intentionally or not, so that it looks like candy. In fact, I would consider firing anyone that would have brought such a product idea to my intention. Why so harsh? Because it is a clear and apparent indication that that person has absolutely no historical frame of reference, that they must have been living with their face glued to the Cartoon Network or some other entertainment channel non-stop for the last twenty years. Making adult products appear cartoonish or attractive to children has been a big no-no since the tobacco industry got smacked for things like the cartoon camel for Camel cigarettes.

The only way that that product design got out was that morons came up with the idea, morons did the design and morons OKed it. No other way. Period. My first thought, when I saw the stuff in someone’s home, was “Why the hell does this look like candy?”. It looked like it would be good to eat. It has a pleasant tactile quality and so I’d be thinking, “Who are we selling to this to? Teen moms who are only mature enough to be physically capable of getting pregnant? Don’t you realize that that would mean they’re not smart enough to keep this crazy crap away from their kids – even if we put it in bold type on the box?”

Here in lies one of the most insidious parts of the design, because it is everywhere on the web. Why is it that so many names of companies on the web and elsewhere sound like baby talk? Google, sounds like a cross between ‘goo-goo’ and ‘gurgle’. ‘Twitter’ sounds like what a child might call a bird chirping and ‘tweets’ sound like baby birds. It like those kids that did X and went to clubs with pacifiers in their mouths and stuffed animals on their backs are now running companies or the companies  are doing subliminals to get their business. So, is that why that one spot looks like something from a Saturday morning live action TV show from the 70s? In fact, the spot mirrors the typical way Target commercials used to look like, which were aimed at teens and young adults, and modeled after early 70s psychedelia:

So the Tide Pods look young, they come in what looks like a candy jar, which is a concept decision – not one based on utility or any other purpose, and it’s easy to get into. So, at that point, I’d be finding out who was responsible for the packaging, the idea, the marketing and I’d be getting some answers because this was a disaster in the waiting from the beginning and now, now there’s a dead little  boy involved as well as thousands of children that have become ill on not one but two continents. This is not rocket science folks – I know. I have friends who are actual rocket scientists and this isn’t it. This is what happens when you have people who have been told all their lives how dad blame smart they are and then they turn around and do something asinine like this, for obvious reasons. This is not just some dumb-ass mistake, like the decision to make new Coke and get rid of classic Coke so that everyone is stuck with that new stupid taste that some corporate jerk-off came up with. No. This is a series of bone headed decisions made by a gaggle of morons who decided “Yes, lets make the Pods look like candy and package them in a candy jar and make the commercial all psychedelic like something from a futuristic Willy Wonka set, so it’ll appeal to teen moms all across America. YEAAAAAH!” That’s what the marketing looks like to me. There’s no two moms at the laundry mat with one complaining about lugging her heavy detergent box with the basket of clothes and toddlers in tow, while other is all, “Oh Sally. You haven’t heard about these new, easy to use Tide Pods…?” Nope. Instead it looks like something that would be part of the background of Katy Perry video.

Every last one of those morons should’ve been forced to attend that child’s funeral and watch as the casket went into the ground while wearing headphones that play a voice track that said, “You see them putting the tiny casket in the ground? That baby should be playing in a sandbox, not lying in a box going into the dirt…And it’s all your fault” over and over again. Because all the adults were asleep at the wheel over at Tide, while morons played make believe, there’s now a little person who won’t get the chance to grow up and buy any Tide products, or anything else from parent company P&G,  because this one killed him because it was designed in a way that would be attractive to children.  There’s no one good excuse, let alone an answer that can excuse it. It’s inexcusable and unforgivable. But don’t take my word for it – give Paul Fox, the Proctor and Gamble guy you saw in the news video, a call at  513 983 3465 and you ask him how is it that they had a team of people who created a toxic product that they then designed, packaged and marketed, so that it would appeal to children that are too young to read. Let me know what asinine excuse he comes up with in the comments section. Please.

And just so there’s no misunderstanding here, I’m being deliberately harsh in my criticism because I have been in that position of product design before – where I had a potentially dangerous product that presented me with a number of issues to resolve so that no one would be harmed and I would’t get sued.  I designed solutions that were so sophisticated that when my attorney’s office at Porter, Wright, Morris, and Arthur had their product liability department look it over, they determined that not only had I done the appropriate thing to protect myself from a lawsuit, but that it had exceeded what the law required to a degree that they had never seen before. I know how to do this, folks, so I can say that people behind Tide Pods are idiots because they are. They should all be fired except for the people in the lab that made the detergent in the Pods. Everyone else should be given a pink slip because this little failure could cost Tide and Procter and Gamble some nice coin. It’s already given them negative exposure and they have to go through the expense of having to do package re-design when, if they had done it right in the first place, none of this would have happened. And if you think that the warnings on the box are enough to protect them from a lawsuit – you’re as clueless as they are. Why do you think those Porter Wright attorneys said that I had exceeded the product liability warning requirements at a level that they had never seen before? It’s because I thought of every potential contingency and had it covered, but in this case, Tide and Procter and Gamble aren’t covered. If I was an attorney, I’d be organizing as class action lawsuit against them because, from what I’ve seen, gross negligence is not out of the question here. At all. Again. This didn’t have to happen. It was designed to.

So that’s what failure looks like, folks. It gets people hurt, it wastes time and money and sometimes gets people killed. But in the name of innovation, the innovation hypesters are promoting failure as a value. Instead of teaching people how not to fail, these innovation hypesters promote failure and not being afraid to fail, because they themselves have failed to learn how to teach people how to think creatively so they innovate faster, better and without failing. And here’s the thing – it is actually possible to do that – if you know how. I do. I’ve done it. That’s why I’m so hard on these stupid jerks who have conned people into thinking that they’re “thought leaders” and have everything figured out. Huh, thought leaders – leading us to think what? To be so clueless that a child’s life ends before he could even have his 1st birthday?

So the next time you hear some stupid frickin’ moron talk about the value of failure, think about the little child going down that hole in a box and remember, when the next big failure happens, it could be your child or even you, but rest assured, the failure hypesters will keep on hyping…

Post Script:

I know that some of the data that I presented is over two years old, but here’s why it’s still relevant – “Although efforts have been introduced in recent years to raise awareness among parents and to make packaging design changes, it appears that the number of reports is continuing to increase. If the current trend continues, more than 11,000 reports will be received in 2014”.

Nothing’s over. P&G has refused to change the packaging enough. This is just the beginning…

 

 

Sick and Tired Of Paul Sloane’s Slick Shine-Ola

Paul Sloane seems to always write the most insipid B.S. about innovation that I see. No, wait, let me change that. I think ONE time I did see something that I liked that made me go, “Wow. I can guess sometime he can pull his head out of there…” but like I said, I’ve seen this maybe one time. I’ve not read much of his material, so it could just be the luck of the draw that most of what I’ve seen was the crap, but hey, I calls ’em like I sees ’em…

And so it is, I’ve got a real problem with the following sentiment from one of his blog posts:

“Change your attitude to failure. If everything you try works then you are not being bold enough. Innovation involves trying some things that don’t work. Treat each failure as a learning opportunity. The innovator’s motto is, ‘I succeed or I learn but I never fail’.”

Really? Here’s the deal – if a person really has it together, knows where creativity truly comes from and how to tap into it every time – at will, then they will be right most of the time. Anyone can fail, big deal. In fact, I pointed out on another blog that Edison’s big quote, about not failing but finding out 10,000 ways that something didn’t work, was really just a defensive comment to cover the fact that he wasn’t smart enough to nail the right solution the first couple of times out of the shoot. However, another man, Nikola Tesla, was and Edison hated him. So who do you strive to be  when it comes to innovative ideas – Edison or Tesla?

This attitude that I’m finding, that it’s OK to fail, appears to be becoming a psychological crutch when the real focus should be how to improve insight, vision, creativity so that you don’t fail! When you learn to drive a car are you expected to be allowed to have accidents when you go for a drive for your first year, just because you’re not that good at it yet? In most professions as well, failure isn’t allowed. You do that too many times and you’re out of a job or out of business.

What’s missing is the very simple but obvious fact that few people know how to really be innovative by tapping into the very core of where creativity comes from and that reason is that most people don’t even understand creativity. I saw a TED talk once where Amy Tan said that creativity was the height of compassion. Really? The Nazis had a lot of very creative scientists and they didn’t give a damn about compassion.

Just to be honest, I saw a Youtube video about the worse 5 weapons in use now. Most were from the U.S.. Because they showed actual casualties, I decided not to include it because I didn’t want it to ruin the feel from the other videos here. However, it really puts Tan’s comment into perspective as one of the most asinine statements ever made by a reportedly, intelligent woman. Creativity is a neutral force that can be used for good or evil. Period. The first time you hear someone claim otherwise, feel free to discount anything else they say…

There’s such a thing that I’m beginning to call, SuperSupra™ Creativity. It’s there when it’s needed. People want to say that you can’t force innovation. SuperSupra™ Creativity doesn’t care what the circumstances are, it just provides the answers, the solutions, the invention, the document, the lay-out, the treatment, whatever it is that needs to be done. The suggestions in the piece, where I got the quote, are very good ideas as far as creative ways to problem solve, but they say nothing about the issue of a person being creative themselves. These are simply convenient work-arounds. If Paul really had the answers I’m talking about, he’d come out and talk about them. Instead, as with most innovation and creativity hypesters, we get mostly his slick shine-ola.

Listen to Paul and Jeffery Baumgartner, whom I hold in equal respect to Paul, argue over whether brainstorming is good or whether Jeffery’s latest gimmick is better. Listen closely to see if either one ever mentions at all the idea of  training the team in creative thinking first.

So, the thing is that people gathered together with widely varied levels of creativity and knowledge of how to apply it, are like these children, unwrapping music instruments and discovering their instrument’s most shallow and pedestrian potential for the first time.

Yep. That’s what it’s like essentially, from any kind of session where people don’t really understand how to use creativity beyond the most pedestrian level.  Now here comes the “facilitator” and see what a difference it makes.

Yep. You can recognize a bit of a tune, but it’s still a lot of noise. But what happens when the children get a little training in what they’re doing before they attempt a song? In other words, when each participant knows their instrument and can contribute to the discussion useful ideas and not just noise. I know I’m veering away from the brainstorm format a bit here but I’m allowed, because Baumgartner wasn’t going along with it anyway. I’m viewing the session as more an orchestration of spontaneous ideas that fit together within a discussion, with a productive outcome. I know, because I’ve been in them before. On average, it would look more like this –

I think you get my point. By the way, I think those little children are very talented and endearing and I hope you enjoyed their performance as much as I have. Within the context of this discussion however, I see them as symbolizing your basic corporate culture that has allowed for creative expression within a conservative context. The ideas flow, and are very productive within the strict, corporate structure that allows them, and they are seen as productive. But, let’s take this a little further. What happens when you have a team of highly trained people in creativity? Ones that know how to tap into the source, the SuperSupras™  who are then allowed to be who they are? Let me give you an example of what I mean by “highly” trained SuperSupra™ with an example of one such person –

Power. That’s the word that comes to mind for me. Imagine the opportunity of being on that stage with this legendary rock star, Ozzy Osbourne, that you’ve listened to and you’re actually jamming with his band while thousands cheer you on. The best part is he’s just a kid and is too innocent to tap into those kind of feelings yet. However, that’s what’s happening all around him. Projections of the power of creativity unleashed.  Everyone is feeling, “Wow. Look at what this kid can do, he’s so into our culture he can share the stage with these legends and rock out”! YEAH!!!!!!!!!! So, back to the problem at hand, if you’ve got one person like that, that can really come up with the great ideas that wow everyone, then imagine a couple more on the team –

Now you know what I mean by SuperSupra™. Most people who listen to men like Paul Sloane and Jeffery Baumgartner are going to be like those little N. Korean tykes with their guitars at best – effective but rote. They will have mastered all the gimmicks, but lack the skills to improvise, to know the freedom of being unleashed in their creativity and how to use it.

So, I want to go back to his statement that if you haven’t failed you weren’t being bold enough. OK, so my knee-jerk reaction is who does he think he is to tell anyone about being bold? I don’t see anything is his background that would indicate that he even knows the definition of the word or has even experienced it. The biggest failure in my professional life was because I wasn’t bold enough, not the other way around. I relied too much on other people who undermined what I was doing, which taught me to take the next move and be able to do everything myself. My mentor actually taught me what I needed to know to accomplish that because he knew that I was going to need that ability and he knew that I had it in me to pull it off. So, had that kept me from being a team player? No. But it has freed me from having to rely on a team if there’s no team around. That’s why when I see comments like, “Innovation mean collaboration” I know the person has absolutely no idea whatsoever about innovation. None. They’re like the kids that were buying the KMart, copycat punk clothes off the rack back in the ’80s, instead being punk and living it out of the thrift shops.

I agree that people are afraid to try being creative and that is mostly because they haven’t been trained properly in the process or what it means. Creativity means one thing and one thing alone – power.  The rock’n’roll kids had it. Did you see the difference? That’s what  SuperSupra(TM) Creativity is like. And I’m sure that there are many bosses in some businesses that actually don’t want their employees to be too creative because it means that they will become more powerful and then they may figure out that maybe they don’t need that job after all or maybe that they can get a better one elsewhere. Again, this isn’t happening everywhere, but it is somewhere and it raises the issue that unlike the easily tossed about branding term that “innovation” has become, it is actually a multifaceted, multidimensional concept that is often beyond the cognitive grasp of bosses, CIOs, motivational speakers, and  so-called “creativity experts” like Paul Sloan.

B.S. from Brown as Presented By Debbie Mills-Scofield

By Marshall Barnes, R&D Eng Copyright July 6th, 2014 ALL RIGHT RESERVED

 

Part of what I discovered that is wrong with the innovation promotion industry is the proclivity to cover-up one thing by changing phrases, words, or other cosmetic approaches to then claim that you have a new idea. An innovation. In reality, it’s all about as effective as putting a wig and lipstick on a sow and saying it’s Miss Piggy. Or worse, covering up body oder with cheap perfume. In the end, it’s not what it seems and the illusion doesn’t last long.

The worse thing about this practice is that so any people and entities have been getting away with it. How so? I’m an analyst among many other things, and I catch these tricks when I analyze what’s being said. This is a skill that I’ve witnessed in decline among many other people, beginning in the ’90s. It is especially near nonexistence in the media at a level that would be alarming to my senior high journalism teacher. In my case, lot’s of times these manipulations just pop right out at me, but I’m usually tipped off by the title of an article or blog post, because it is in the title that the fakery appears first. This usually manifests itself in trying to sound witty, or ironic. For example, “Go For Discovery and Not Solutions”. The minute someone suggests that I go for something ambiguous over something concrete, I become suspicious. It tells me right away that perhaps they’re doing that because they don’t know how to deal with specifics and they are trying to sell me on a way of doing things that makes their weaknesses look like strengths. So that in turn, weakens me. That’s one of the reasons I say that the innovation promotion field has now gotten dangerous for business.

I’ll give this example, taken from the phrase I listed above –

A commencement speaker at Brown University told the gathered throng that ““We didn’t come to Brown to find answers. We came to Brown to come up with better questions.” which is 100% b.s. Not a little bit. Not a lot. 100%. Here’s why –

OK, they went to Brown to come up with better questions. Note, first of all, this isn’t the result of some poll. This is an unidentified commencement speaker who is speaking rhetorically, it appears. Now why am I being so ambiguous? Give me a second and it will be apparent. So then what did the students do? The last time I checked, in order to get a degree you had to pass exams. The last time I checked, exams had questions to answer. The Brown statement makes you think that it’s all about questions now, instead of answers, but it’s a misdirection. If you’re looking for answers – you already have questions. Better questions are still there to get answered. It’s always about getting the answers, that’s why it’s misdirection. It’s making you think that you have to change something that you’re doing when in fact, you don’t have to change anything. But for the innovation promoter, they have to get you to think that you’ve got to change, otherwise, what do you need them for? So, because they have no real answers, and they have no real solutions, they have to make you think they do and the way to do that is to get you to think that you’ve got to change what you’re doing and do what they say – but it’s all smoke and mirrors.

Now, here’s why the ambiguity. This quote from an unidentified commencement speaker at Brown came from one Deb Mills-Scofield, founder of Mills-Scofield LLC, who claims to be an innovator, entrepreneur and non-traditional strategist with 20 years experience in industries ranging from the Internet to Manufacturing with multinationals to start ups. She is also a partner at Glengary LLC, a Venture Capital Firm and she’s the one that used that example to make a point – to get her readers to go after “discovery” instead of “solutions”. But here’s the deal. She not only failed to identify the speaker, but in her article she has a link to this page – https://news.brown.edu/articles/2014/05/orators which names Carolyn Bologna and Joshua Block as student speakers at said commencement but neither one is identified with giving a speech with said quotation.

Now are you starting to get the picture here? The THEME of Deb’s article is discovery over solutions. She uses a quote from an unidentified commencement speaker, suggests, by linking to a page with two students on it, that it was one of them that said it, and she actually thinks that this is credible behavior? Why can’t she say which student it was? Hello? So, we don’t know, actually, if it was even one of them that said it. The quote is not the theme of either or their speeches which means that the comment was probably rhetorical. In fact, it’s not even original as I’ve heard a similar sentiment expressed during a documentary on advanced concept science and technology. In that case, the statement was, “It’s not enough to just look for answers. We need to start coming up with better questions.” However, notice the difference – answers are not discarded as a goal, only that better questions are now required as well. Now you see why I was ambiguous on the details – because my source was needlessly ambiguous.

So now, Deb’s article has a high degree of B.S. already. She uses an unsubstantiated quote to make the point of her article when that quote, taken literally, is problematic. Even if taken at face value, if your intent is to discover something, then by default you will come up with an answer to something. She seems to be arguing for something akin to pure research, which is not a problem – I’ve done pure research and made significant discoveries, but there is no value in doing one over the other. It’s based on the need at the time. As an internationally noted R&D engineer who has even built his own labs, I think I know something about doing something for discovery. That’s why I built my labs. The first was specifically for pure research. In other words, just to do research to see what I might discover. But here’s the point – you do that because you know that what you discover will provide solutions! Case in point – out of that lab I discovered the electromagnetic solution for warp drive and because of that, I am the leader in the world on not only the ultimate potentials for space tourism, going to Mars and interstellar space travel (NASA BTW has none of this capability) but time travel as well. That’s right – time travel. You can look it up. My machine, the Verdrehung Fan™, is already sending RF and IR waves out of our space-time continuum and was the device I used to beat Dr. Ronald L. Mallett in the race to build such a technology. I stand to make more money than the entire innovation promotion industry within the next 12 years. Right now, I’m preparing to do major presentations at Harvard, the International Mars Society Conference and the 100 Year Starship Symposium – July, August, September.  So, I think I know just a little bit more about the issue of discovery vs solutions than little Debbie does.

If you look at the overwhelming amount of innovation advice and gimmickry out there, you’d be astonished. It can’t all be right because in fact, much of it is contradictory. I haven’t done a proper check yet, but I would imagine that everything you need to know about doing innovation could be summed up in 10 talking points. That’s it – 10. So why so much material? Why so much yapping and blabbing about something so simple? Because, they have nothing else to do and they have to make themselves appear to be needed.

I’ll give you yet another example along the same line as the quote I’ve been discussing. Warren Berger, the author of  A More Beautiful Question: The Power of Inquiry to Spark Breakthrough Ideas who was featured in an article on Inc. magazine’s  web site. In it Berger, states the following: “I think people can rally around a question more than a statement. A question tells you we are on a journey together: ‘How might we use robotics to make the world a better place?’ A statement says we’ve done it already: ‘We use robotics to make the world a better place.’ The statement is a little arrogant and maybe a little bit of a false claim. The question declares the great thing you want to do with your company. It’s much more empowering.” which is just so much B.S. Why? Because the statement that you make in regards to the robots, if you want to indicate a mission or a journey (because missions are journeys that have a purpose to be accomplished) is not “We use robotics to make the world a better place”, but “WE WILL MAKE ROBOTS TO MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE”. That is both a statement and the indication of a journey. It says that you won’t stop at just one, it implies that you will continue to expand and innovate. Berger was giving a false choice. The issue of using a question was B.S., misdirection, and yet he presented it as if that was the only other option. That’s what innovation hypesters do because just as in this case, they don’t know the answers. But another point occurred to me. Berger made that statement in regards to how to get people to rally around something. I don’t remember any great leader, good or bad, rallying people with questions. As a World War II researcher I remember Winston Churchill’s brave speech of how the British would meet the enemy and fight.

 

 

I never remember Hitler getting the German people to rally around the Nazi cause by asking questions, he made statements. Because I don’t have such musings in my head, I decided to look up some quotes. I found no questions, that’s for sure, but of the many statements in relation to the German people, I found one quite in tune to Berger’s comments: “A car for the people, an affordable Volkswagen, would bring great joy to the masses and the problems of building such a car must be faced with courage.” That was Hitler at the 1934 Berlin Auto Show. It almost sounds like a commercial. In fact, with just a little editing – “Introducing the affordable Volkswagen. A car for the people that, with courageous effort, will bring joy to the masses when built…” I wonder what der Fuhrer would have thought about this Volkswagen ad made so many years later –

 

 

This stuff is easy for me to see because I haven’t spent the last forty years blabbing to people about innovation – I spent that time doing it. Many times it was on tight time schedules and under the gun. I had to just make things happen, or I wasn’t going to eat that month except Cream of Wheat. So I know what it means to innovate, I know what it means to have to do it where failure wasn’t fast or smart it wasn’t even an option, and I know where creativity comes from because it was my job to use it all, better, faster and on a higher level in order to match the demands that were put on me. That’s a lot different from someone whose only resume entries are for how many seminar and keynotes they’ve given. I do this blog to get the word out about what’s really going on. When I do a seminar I charge a pretty penny for it because what I’m going to train those attending, they can’t get from anywhere else, and it will save them time, money, and resources. But you know what? I’m not going to turn it into a cottage industry because there’s no point. When they take my seminar they’ll know everything I do on the subject. You see, I’m still going to make money doing innovations – alot more than I ever would speaking about it because that’s how good I am at doing them. I have no vested interest in stringing people along for a ride. Its just like that old saying – “Those that do, do. Those that can’t, yap about it”.

In the video below is a perfect example of how people like Deb will manipulate words and ideas to misdirect you. She talks about RCUS – Random Collision of Unusual Suspects. She claims, and I quote “this is when innovation really happens”. NO, IT’S NOT! It is only one way and not even the best way and for a very good reason  – if that’s what you’re relying on to get an innovation, then guess what? You’re competition, who knows what I train people to do, will beat you to it because they don’t have to wait around until they collide with the right other person, they’ll have the training to get the job done themselves. This is what I mean by these innovation promoters making things up to make-up for the fact that they really don’t have the answers. Anyone that knows anything at all about creativity and innovation knows that partnerships and collaboration can produce new ideas. But do you want to rely on that alone? You would if you really believed what Deb said. Oh, we have to find other people or we can’t innovate. Meanwhile look at the historical record. Tesla didn’t do that. Leonardo Di Vinci didn’t as far as I know. The man that creatively inspired me in my teens – Todd Rundgren, didn’t. You might say, “But they’re geniuses!” to which I would say, “So? Wouldn’t you like to at least think on a higher level than you do and at least be on the same highway as them, if not moving at the same speed?” because I’ll tell you right now, these innovation hypers don’t promote anything remotely like being on that road, I can tell you that for sure.

So where the rubber meets the road is when the decision is made – do you wanna listen to little Debbie, who uses semantics and word misdirection to make her seem like she knows more than she does, or somebody that shoots straight, gives it to you the way it is and has the track record of doing game changing innovation against all the odds? Let me put it this way. In rock’n’roll, which is part of my background, if you play guitar you have choice. You can concentrate on just playing rhythm and making sure the group has a good solid sound or you can take on the challenge of playing lead. Lead guitarist get most of the attention. They also have the responsibility of creating good improvisations that will keep that attention and invigorate the crowd. But the best guitarists are really good at both. They can be counted on to do the flashy riffs but they can also hang back and do rhythm well. In fact, in some cases, they have to do both because they’re the only guitarist in the band, like Joe Walsh was with the James Gang or Todd Rundgren has been many times. The point is being versatile, but it is the lead player that can be flashy and handle the rhythm that is the best player, not the one who can only do rhythm.

Let me put it another way – in the overall scheme of things, a successful group must have a dedicated songwriter who can be counted on to write some hits. That doesn’t mean that the others can’t do it sometime or contribute, but if a band doesn’t have at least one person who can deliver on demand, that’s a problem. That person, is the most valuable player in the group because he or she’s contributing to making a lot more money than they would otherwise. The point is, collaboration can’t be relied on, groupthink cannot be the main creative mechanism because sometimes things just don’t click. Someone has to be the wiz, the visionary who can do it alone if need be. It’s better if you have a team that can do it but the likelihood of a random team coming together where the each have that wiz skill, is rare unless they’ve been trained. That’s the missing link in all this innovation hype – the lack of effective training because the promoters have no frickin’ idea how to do it. So they invent gimmicks, buzz words and other distractions instead of focusing on what you need to really get down to business. Despite what Ms. Mills-Scofield may think, the answer is it’s still about answers, it will always be about answers – even if you want to question the answers, in the end it’s about answers. And no fuzzy wuzzy, feel good guru is going to change that. You can have all the questions you want, but the purpose of questions is to get answers so you can act on them. Period.

I Knew Disruption Was Malarkey Long Before Lepore Did: Here’s Proof

Originally Posted on Blog.com June 23, 2014
By MARSHALL BARNES, R&D Eng Copyright June 21, 2014 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Back, when I was a very small child, my mom began to drill into my head one phrase that I have never forgotten. It has kept me out of plenty of trouble and has also come back to haunt my parents as well, when I decided to drop out of college and pursue my dreams. That simple phrase is “Don’t follow the crowd”. That one phrase essentially translates into another – “resist peer pressure” and that was the thing that really got my parents, because if you can resist pressure from your peer group, you can resist pressure from anyone. It is the phrase, along with most of my heroes growing-up, that made me into the fierce individualist I am today, even now with the focus on groups, crowds, peers, openess and partnering. And so it is with this groupthink about disruption and the hype over innovation promotion, which brings me to the recent blow-up with one Jill Lepore and her New Yorker article against the father of disruption theory, Clayton Christensen, both professors at Harvard, where coincidently I’ll be speaking on the 25th of next month.

Disruption theory, just like the idea of innovation itself, has been over hyped, misused and exploited by motivational speakers and morons to the point that it was becoming obvious to those who didn’t even have a discerning mind on the matter. A backlash not only was due but I predicted as much in comments made on blogs at innovationexcellence.com where I have a community membership. As an innovator, inventor, and creativity scientist/master, I have an over 40 year track record studying and doing creativity and innovation that has reached 30 different fields and with 40 different breakthroughs, so I know what I’m talking about in a way that Lepore can’t. Though I agree mostly with her position, in the overall war against the hype of disruption and innovation, attacking Christensen is only a scratch on the surface because the problem extends far beyond him, and he also regrets the misuse of the word, disruption, or so he says. What lies ahead, however, is a war that she can’t win on her own, however, I’ve been preparing for it for a while now and the date that this blog was first launched and its subheading, is proof of that.

The date of my first post here is May 3rd, 2014, more than a month before the publication of her article, and the sub-subtitle of this blog is “”They called for disruption, Now they’re getting it”. The title of the first blog post says it all – “Welcome to the Beginning of the End of Innovation As You’ve Been Sold It“. You can’t be any more specific than that. As someone that’s a member of a number of the top open innovation groups online, I have an intimate knowledge of what is happening in the industry across the board now, not back in history at some point, and it is that knowledge that led me to realize just how much misinformation and outright B.S. is being promulgated as cutting edge business strategy. In the ’80s I learned about how to be cheaper, smarter, faster, leaner, and meaner when it came to being competitive – when it was required. All of those things lead toward more innovation and subsequently better competition, which of course could be described as disruptive but who cares about semantics here? And that’s one of the biggest problems in this whole situation – the overwhelming tendency for the disruption/innovation hype industry to think that but substituting one word for another, that you change the concept. Sorry, boys and girls, but you don’t, as long as you leave the definitions the same.

Above is a video of Clayton in action. He discusses his theory of disruption beginning with the steel industry. The problem with Chrsitensen’s analysis is two fold. One, he describes the scenario with the steel industry and mini-mills as if the mini-mills continued to take over steel altogether and then failed. I checked and found a whole list of U.S. companies making rebar, the bottom rung steel product that should have been the first to go according to him. He assumes that the problem is the way that businesses react to the effect of smaller competition coming in on the bottom, that they will always automatically just release those smaller margin markets to the competition, yet he says they aren’t “stupid”. Maybe that’s the problem – no one’s had the guts or the gumption to tell them how stupid they really are. The last time I checked, if your total profit from overall operations, is $1B and you let go lesser earning portions that are 7% each, and there’s say 4 of them, that’s a loss of 28% of your business. He assumes that they’ll get more of the higher profitable level, maybe so, but my reactions would be to cut costs of the business you already have and make that more profitable. Innovate improvements, what Christensen calls sustaining innovation. All it would take to undue that scenario he describes is if one of those companies decided to fight back against the upstarts, like a certain company did against me one time. But he says they don’t, because it’s not profitable.

Steve Jobs thought more like me (Hey, I’m older and I was doing it first). In a series of emails he declared “Holy war on Google” , something that I will continue in my own way since I hate them with a passion. Their current actions against indie record labels, an industry that I have been connected to half my life, pretty much seals the deal for me. At any rate, all this talk about disruption is really just semantics. Here, let me wave my magic wizard’s wand and show you – substitute “disruption” for “competitiveness”. See? It’s like it was, back in the ’80s. What doesn’t change are the tactics. When faced with threatening competition (instead of disruption), that’s what you do – you go to war, like Jobs said. You get more competitive. You know what I’m saying and I didn’t even use the word, disruption. It’s the story that got me selected by Julie Anixter, of Innovation Exellence, to be one of 25 featured innovators at the IX Innovation Cities Tour in Boston. Innovation Excellence, who by the way, is connected to Christensen’s Disruptor Foundation. My story of “From The Rebellion VS The Empire to Alexander the Great” (which you can see here ) focused on using creativity as a competitive weapon in the ’80s in a battle with a local video production studio and now again, to beat the competition in the advanced concept physics/aerospace arena on an international level. It’s showing both to illustrate how disruption actually works, but not by focusing on Christensen’s theory (it didn’t even exist in the ’80s) but from the use of military strategy and tactics. In the ’80s we were inspired by The Return of the Jedi as we had to face off against that new production firm, with their massively outfitted studio, that wanted to dominate the entire local video production market on all levels. We saw them as the Empire, with their studio Death Star and we were the Rebellion and we were going to fight back, and we did and we won in a two year conflict which left the studio management split apart and in the end (not by our doing) the loss of the studio itself.

We were the disruption that they brought on themselves by trying to dominate areas of the market that traditionally they should have left alone. Oh, but how did we little 20 somethings ever manage it without the professorial guidance of Clayton Christensen? We used the creativity that all underdog rebels, insurgents, freedom fighters, and revolutionaries do. Was it disruptive? Yeah, but not because of some magical theory. Hell, it’s just common sense! We also stood by and watched as Cranston/Csuri Productions, the first computer animation production house in the world, fell by the same forces (not ours) that Christensen describes – they were under cut by the advent of cheaper computers, software programs and the simple fact that there is break point where, if a cheaper product exists that will get the job done, that’s where the customers go. Charles Csuri was so fixated on doing the best quality computer animation possible that he chose to completely ignore the threat from the little guys until it was too late. In that respect, Christensen’s theory came true, but it didn’t have to.

I want to make something perfectly clear here, as well. In the greater scheme of things, we were on CCP’s side. We didn’t want them to go out of business and for the record, the staff there was always nice to us and helpful. But I didn’t run the shop, Chuck Csuri did, and although I was working on alternatives to some of the things that they did, they weren’t computer animations and they weren’t to compete with CCP but solve issues for ourselves and clients that couldn’t afford to pay $2,000 to $5,000 per finished second to get things done. If CCP had started a discount division, they could have stayed in business, but there were only so many high end clients in the world and when equipment costs started to drop, and digital video effects became better without computer system requirements, the high end clients bought their own systems. The scenario played out the way Christensen likes to call it, but the point is that it didn’t have to go that way. The production studio should have left us alone, according to Christensen and I agree, but they didn’t and so we had to take them on in a two year war. So, the disruption theory doesn’t always play out and many times it is a tactic instead of a business plan.

 

Jill Lepore accuses Christensen of many things, including overlooking facts that don’t suit his theory, and there certainly are some. I’m not here to repeat her accusations though, I don’t have to. But one thing I did notice from the lecture video that I’ve included here, is that disruption the way he describes it is not often the way people promote it. Lepore has caught on to this herself where she writes, “Ever since “The Innovator’s Dilemma,” everyone is either disrupting or being disrupted. There are disruption consultants, disruption conferences, and disruption seminars. This fall, the University of Southern California is opening a new program: ‘The degree is in disruption,’ the university announced.”

Yeah, all this hype and there’s not one gun put to anyone’s head with the caveat that they had better follow this formula or else. All it takes, in every case, in every industry is for someone to have the brains and the balls to say,”Nope. We’re not playing it this way. We’re actually going to do real innovation and create a new path.” But venture capitalists like Josh Linker, as she points out, only have one strategy, driven by disruption – make money with a company and sell, exactly the kind of VCs I’ve been known to laugh in their faces and get up and walk out of their meeting. Small minded, clueless and stuck in playing the game of investing in a company, having it get profitable and then selling, with no appreciation that you might do that with some stupid start-up that’s just selling a bunch of apps, but you don’t with one developing world changing technology in aerospace that’s offering to buy you out at a 1,000% ROI within two years. But the VCs and the innovation experts and all the rest just continue, lock step in their mindless march toward disruption, totally unaware, as Christensen was, that someone can disrupt the disruption and the disruptors, too.

Innovation commentator Greg Satell cites a landmark study done by Solomon Asch in the 1950’s that showed people have a tendency to conform to crowd pressure even when the idea in question is obviously and patently wrong. Like I said earlier, not me. But because of this, we have seen the viral explosion of the hype of disruption theory on perhaps an unprecedented scale and this is where Lepore and I are in strong agreement. The only problem is that, although she may have sounded the clarion call, she’s in no position to fight the war beyond her little skirmish with Christensen. If things are going to change, it’s going to take a war and it’s going to take exposing bad actors, and bad advice on a regular basis, and certain people are going to get pissed off while others are already cheering what’s happened so far with Lepore, and are beginning to do the same for me. But Lepore is a historian and not in the innovation industry – I am. And she doesn’t have a 40 year track record in innovation, I do. So that means in this war, that needs to be fought to save business from itself and the disruption/innovation hype cult, she will have little to offer because when that cult fires back with “what the hell do you know about innovation anyway?” she won’t be able to point at the same kind of track record I have and the accomplishments I have and say, “more than you could ever fit into that tiny little pea brain of yours” and then prove exactly why it’s that way. If you doubt me, look at some of the other blog posts here already – and I have twelve more waiting to be released and dozens to write after that.

Those milking the disruption theory and innovation hype for all it’s worth, remind me of the yellow jackets that I used to have to contend with as a child. In late August, after the pears from our pear tree had been dropping a while, the ones that were damaged had been left to rot on the ground to become compost during the winter. Well, that’s also the season for yellow jackets to get crazy and frisky, looking for all kinds of liquids, especially sweet ones. My job was to go out back and get up the rotting pears and dump them. The only problem was I was surrounded by yellow jackets buzzing around getting drunk on pear juice. If I wasn’t careful, the yellow jackets would see me and try to sting, thinking I was a threat, and I was. And just like those hyping disruption theory think of it as their great money bonanza, the yellow jackets thought the pears were the best thing in the world, until I would pick-up individual pears by the stem, that they weren’t slurping from, and throw them down on top of the yellow jackets on other pears, with a crushing blow, essentially turning their treasured past time into the weapon of their demise. The same thing’s going happen to the innovation hypers.

Remember this blog’s subtitle?

http://www.innovationexcellence.com/blog/2013/11/19/the-state-of-business-innovation-today/

http://www.innovationexcellence.com/blog/2014/02/04/the-new-secret-inside-of-innovation/#comment-137561

http://www.innovationexcellence.com/blog/2014/01/10/every-business-will-be-disrupted-by-open-technology-in-2014/#comment-132405

http://www.innovationexcellence.com/blog/2014/01/10/every-business-will-be-disrupted-by-open-technology-in-2014/#comment-132405

http://www.innovationexcellence.com/blog/2014/02/03/how-not-to-innovate/#comment-137611

http://www.innovationexcellence.com/blog/2014/02/04/the-new-secret-inside-of-innovation/#comment-137561

http://www.innovationexcellence.com/blog/2014/06/08/is-innovation-simple-2/