DR.Ronald Mallett

alejandroluis

alejandroluis

New Member
Messages
17
DR.Ronald Mallett

I would like to pose a question, both for those of you who do and don't believe in time travel...What do you think of Dr. Ronald Malletts theories on time travel and the possibilty of it coming to fruition in this decade...again for those who do and dont believe..i personally believe it has already been done, by a select few both astrally and physically, but what are your opinions ?
 
alejandroluis

alejandroluis

New Member
Messages
17
Re: DR.Ronald Mallett

What ? !!! no one has an opinion on this....google DR.Ronald Mallett i think that those of you who are skeptics about the possibility of time travel will quickly become believers !!
 

Num7

Num7

Administrator
Staff
Messages
12,486
Re: DR.Ronald Mallett

What!!

I've seen his videos about a year ago. There's some awesome stuff in there, and the guy has been working on time travel for a long time. The guy seems to know what he's doing, he's definitely one of those who can achieve something.

BTW, I believe in time travel. I just have no idea what it specifically requires to take place.
 

Barbon

Barbon

Junior Member
Messages
30
Re: DR.Ronald Mallett

I don't know what to make of this guy and his time travel plans. He seems to have some good idea's how to make it work but all he seems to do is go around the country promoting his book and lecturing on his idea's for time travel before he's even done it?!?!

I read he was after a quarter of a million dollars to begin the project but that was like 2 years ago so does anyone know if he ever actually got the money and has officially started trying to make this thing yet? or is he still just going round telling people what he's going to do and getting money for it lol.
 
StarLord

StarLord

Senior Member
Messages
3,187
Re: DR.Ronald Mallett

In a recent paper by Ken Olum and Allen Everett[7] the authors claimed to have found problems with Mallett's analysis. One of their objections is that the spacetime which Mallett used in his analysis contains a singularity even when the power to the laser is off and is not the spacetime that would be expected to arise naturally if the circulating laser were activated in previously empty space. Mallett has not offered a published response to Olum and Everett, but in his book Time Traveler he mentions that he was unable to directly model the optical fiber or photonic crystal which bends the light's path as it travels through it, so the light circulates around rather than moving in a straight line; as a substitute he chose to include a "line source" (a type of one-dimensional singularity) which would act as a "geometric constraint", bending spacetime in such a way that the light would circulate around on a helix-shaped path in a vacuum[8] (for an older solution involving an infinite cylinder which creates CTCs, in this case due to the cylinder's own rotation rather than light circulating around it, see the Tipler cylinder). He notes that closed timelike curves are present in a spacetime containing both the line source and the circulating light, while they are not present in a spacetime containing only the line source, so that "the closed loops in time had been produced by the circulating flow of light, and not by the non-moving line source."[9] 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.
Another objection by Olum and Everett is that even if Mallett's choice of spacetime were correct, the energy required to twist spacetime sufficiently would be huge, and that with lasers of the type in use today the ring would have to be much larger in circumference than the observable universe. At one point Mallett agreed that in a vacuum the energy requirements would be impractical but noted that the energy required goes down as the speed of light goes down. He then argued that if the light is slowed down significantly by passing it through a medium (as in the experiments of Lene Hau where light was passed through a superfluid and slowed to about 17 metres per second) the needed energy would be attainable.[10] However, the physicist J. Richard Gott argues that slowing down light by passing it through a medium cannot be treated as equivalent to lowering the constant c (the speed of light in a vacuum) in the equations of General Relativity, saying:[11]
One has to distinguish between the speed of light in a vacuum, which is a constant, and through any other medium, which can vary enormously. Light travels more slowly through water than through empty space, for example, but this does not mean that you age more slowly while scuba diving or that it is easier to twist space-time underwater.
The experiments done so far don't lower the speed of light in empty space; they just lower the speed of light in a medium and should not make it easier to twist space-time. Thus, it should not take any less mass-energy to form a black hole or a time machine of a given size in such a medium.
​
Later, Mallett abandoned the idea of using slowed light to reduce the energy, writing that, "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."[12]
Finally, Olum and Everett note a theorem proven by Stephen Hawking in a 1992 paper on the Chronology Protection Conjecture,[13] which demonstrated that according to General Relativity it should be impossible to create closed timelike curves in any finite region that satisfies the weak energy condition, meaning that the region contains no exotic matter with negative energy. Mallett's original solution involved a spacetime containing a line source of infinite length, so it did not violate this theorem despite the absence of exotic matter, but Olum and Everett point out that the theorem "would, however, rule out the creation of CTC's in any finite-sized approximation to this spacetime."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Mallett

Typically I'm not too trusting of Wiki, but in this instance it's a good place to start.
 
StarLord

StarLord

Senior Member
Messages
3,187
Re: DR.Ronald Mallett

Barbon said:
I don't know what to make of this guy and his time travel plans. He seems to have some good idea's how to make it work but all he seems to do is go around the country promoting his book and lecturing on his idea's for time travel before he's even done it?!?!

I read he was after a quarter of a million dollars to begin the project but that was like 2 years ago so does anyone know if he ever actually got the money and has officially started trying to make this thing yet? or is he still just going round telling people what he's going to do and getting money for it lol.
Click to expand...

THAT is a very interesting modus operandi is it not? Deja Vu anyone? Geddy Lee singing in the back ground... "Take Off!!!!...."
 
StarLord

StarLord

Senior Member
Messages
3,187
Re: DR.Ronald Mallett

""I read he was after a quarter of a million dollars to begin the project but that was like 2 years ago so does anyone know if he ever actually got the money and has officially started trying to make this thing yet? or is he still just going round telling people what he's going to do and getting money for it lol.""

It's an inside joke here. (Deja Vu)
If one spends enough time searching the net, has a good memory when it comes to the net type fruitbats, you can find all sorts of clues to their modus operandi (Latin)

Hint #1
The possibility of people asking for money, getting it, and doing nothing with it in the way they claim. gibbs instantly comes to mind, BUT has nothing to do with the hints and they are not aimed at you.
Hint #2
The likelyhood that what people are selling in regards to certain claims is a total waste of one's money, unless of course the lesson has to do with being schnooked, (Yiddish: shnuk)
Hint #3 Geddy Lee performing the song "Take Off....."

Making money off of pseudo science has been a science itself in regards to fleecing people for centuries. Some we have known have taken it to a higher art form.

As we have seen above in the paper from Olum and Everett, they point out, using scientific facts, known quantum rationale and a plethora of reasons how the kind doctor is full of shit. Though they don't come out and say "Dude, you are full of shit", they don't need to, because they let science cut the "Doctor's" legs out from under him and his bogus theories. Say, how about that "convenient" singularity and lowering the speed of light in a medium, eh? nudge,nudge,wink,wink.

PEER REVIEW is something that cannot be dismissed. It's one thing for a scientist to claim something. It is something altogether entirely different when other scientists can formally examine a theory and then duplicate it, point for point. Unless you have this and it's repeatable for all the scientific world to partake, each end result unwavering from the original theory, you have only a theory. A theory unproven by means of Peer Review and experimentation by qualified experts is naught but speculation and poor science fiction.

What many of us here have experienced first hand and seen is that there is a mountain of farmers gold from his back 40 that is hidden under the guise of false claims and out right lies hidden behind and under pseudo science and radionic moneypits.
 
T

Timebender

Junior Member
Messages
37
His idea sounds alot like what I did only I used two opposing electromagnetic fields, one stationary high amperage and the rotating high voltage.
Of course I didn't have a million bucks of someone elses money so my time dilation accidents were rather crude.
TB
 

Top