Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 12, 2006 - Art Bell

02:39:17

Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Ronald L. Mallett - Towards a Time Machine

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	From the Southeast Asian capital city of the Philippines, Manila, I bid you all good day, good morning, good afternoon, good evening, as the case may be, and welcome to yet another edition, my third this week, of Coast to Coast AM.
	It is my honor and privilege escorting you throughout the weekend.
	I'm Art Bell.
	And this is THE radio program of its genre, whether it be conspiracy theories or, well, the paranormal or the Abbey Normal, and that's what I call the World News, Abbey Normal, and we'll get to that here in a moment.
	A couple of things.
	Today was an interesting, a very interesting day in a lot of ways.
	I normally do not spring out of bed and plunge into the Philippine sunshine.
	And oh, we have it out there in spades today, I'll tell you what.
	A lot of sunshine out there.
	But today, Erin went and got her partials put back on.
	She's got a bridge coming and she's got a partial and it came out when she was eating so she had to go quickly back over.
	Get it put in.
	And so I met her at, we have Pancake House here, so I met her at Pancake House close by, which requires about a quarter mile walk in the Philippine sun.
	And well, I'll tell you what, boy, spring out of bed, leave a nice air-conditioned environment, stroll into about, I don't know, 90 degrees and 100% humidity, And, uh, that hits you hard.
	That really, uh, is a different kind of way to wake up.
	And so that began my day today and I met her over there and we had breakfast.
	Anyway, the webcam shot, uh, tonight is a pretty good one, I think.
	We've got a new little camera the other day, and we were trying it out, and the Bobsy twins happen to be in a perfect position.
	They just love each other, which is, by the way, why I chose these two to come over here.
	They're just in love with each other.
	And I caught a moment, and it really is a beautiful, beautiful shot.
	They decided they were going to sleep together, and take a look at that.
	I mean, that's worth looking at.
	That's artswebcam.
	If you go to coasttocoastam.com, you'll see it in the upper left-hand corner, artswebcam.
	Just click on that.
	If you don't get the right one, just hit refresh, and you'll get the right one.
	The world news is pretty unusually depressing today, particularly in view of the fact that we've been talking about Iraq and terrorism and, you know, the election in the mood of the electorate obviously expressed in this last recent election.
	The Shiite Prime Minister promised Sunday To reshuffle his cabinet after calling lawmakers disloyal and blaming Sunni Muslims for raging sectarian violence that has now claimed, get this, 159 more lives including
	35 men blown apart while waiting to join Iraq's police force.
	Now that's got to be encouraging to recruit.
	Among the unusually high number of dead, 50 bodies found behind a regional electrical company in Baquabwa, I guess it is, 35 miles northeast of Baghdad, and 25 others scattered throughout the capital.
	Three U.S.
	troops were reportedly killed, as were four British service members.
	Next item, responding to a humbling election, White House aide said Sunday that President Bush would welcome any new ideas about the unpopular war in Iraq.
	That's an interesting line, would welcome any new ideas.
	Does that mean he doesn't have any?
	Even Democrats he had branded as soft on terrorism.
	As Bush planned to meet Monday with key advisers, On the war, his advisers adopted a new tone days after a very dissatisfied public handed the White House a very divided government.
	The only people liking that?
	The stock market.
	Insurgent, now get this, around, a bit around the rest of the world, insurgent activity in Afghanistan has risen four-fold this year, and militants now launch more than 600 attacks a month.
	A rising wave of violence that has resulted in 3,700 deaths in 2006, according to a bleak
	new report released Sunday.
	In a volatile border area near Pakistan, more than 20 Taliban militants and possibly as
	many as 60 were killed during several days of clashes.
	Silence.
	So, you know, whether it's Afghanistan or Iraq, clearly, I think, I mean obviously the American people are fed up with this war, the whole war, and I think the other side has taken the vote As definite encouragement.
	You know, and if they just keep up the pressure, if they keep up the violence, the American people are going to get more and more impatient with what's going on.
	And I, you know, they probably have a point.
	That's exactly what's going to occur.
	They're separated by more than 20 years.
	They come from opposing political parties, and one evicted the other from the White House.
	But Bill Clinton and George Bush act like a team.
	A pair of touring comedians with a well-honed act.
	The two former presidents even have their entrance down, Pat, striding in with arms aloft, music pounding, lights flashing, the crowd standing and going wild.
	So, one-time enemies, now best buddies.
	Speaking of fights that were, and are about to be, like a train wreck or a car accident when rich people do battle, everybody stops and rubbernecks, right?
	Billionaires, Ronald Burke, Eli Broad and David Geffen haven't taken off the gloves yet, but all signs point to their doing that.
	It's going to be all over ownership of the troubled hometown newspaper, that little Los Angeles Times.
	The fortunes of the Times, the nation's fourth largest daily newspaper, are being watched very closely by a newspaper industry beset by sales, staffing cutbacks, and circulation drops.
	I bet the internet has a lot to do with that, right?
	Last week, Burke and Broad teamed up to bid for Chicago-based Tribune.
	The Tribune, which acquired the paper in 2000 when it bought the Times Mirror Company.
	Details not discussed.
	It's believed that if they succeed, they would sell off the Tribune's other newspapers, TV stations, and its baseball team, the Chicago Cubs, and then just keep the Times.
	The Hamas-led Palestinian government agreed Sunday to an international peace conference with Israel.
	How about that?
	A little good news after the Arab League, angered by Israel's military offensive in Gaza,
	voted to end a financial blockade on the Palestinians, Foreign Minister Mahmoud Zahar of Hamas
	endorsed a statement by Arab foreign ministers calling for the peace conference
	during a meeting in Cairo to respond to a U.S. veto of a U.N.
	Security Council resolution condemning the Gaza offensive.
	Italian researchers have come up with a novel way for cardiac rehabilitation patients
	to exercise their damaged hearts without having to squeeze into spandex or gyrate in a gym.
	We'll see.
	The dance seems to be just as effective as bicycle and treadmill training for improving exercise capacity.
	In a study of 110 heart failure patients, dancers also reported slightly more improvement in sleep, mood, and the ability to do hobbies, do housework, and have sex, and that sort of thing.
	Now, there also was a recent story about heartbreak.
	That heartbreak is real.
	That people who have broken hearts can actually be seen to have heart attacks.
	And in fact, show the normal signs of having a heart attack.
	And so, a broken heart is a real thing.
	I know it sounds silly, but it's not.
	A broken heart can be healed.
	It's an amazing story, but it's absolutely true.
	Look it up on the, you know, look on Google.
	Broken heart.
	A man was charged Sunday with killing a mother and two children in a stroller by driving drunk through a red light, striking the family in a crosswalk, then leaving the scene of the accident.
	Lawrence Trujillo ordered, held in lieu of $250,000 bail, The magistrate in the case also ordering him to stay away from the father who was in fair condition at Denver Health Medical Center with nerve damage to his right arm as well as a number of bruises.
	All right, we'll take a break here and when we come back we'll look at a little of the other news.
	If you have Anything that you would like to get on the air in the way of open lines.
	We're going to have the balance of the hour in open lines.
	And then, at the top of the hour, the next hour, Ronald Mallet is going to be here.
	And Professor Mallet believes that he has a time travel machine.
	Now, as many of you know, this is my favorite topic of all time.
	Bar none, time travel, that's it.
	And so, if he believes, he is a professor, so if he believes he's got a time machine, believe me, I'm all ears.
	Although, I do it with a little bit of warning because every other serious time travel person that I've interviewed in the past, Dr. Anderson and so many others, have honestly just disappeared.
	The people I've interviewed on time travel are gone.
	Or at least they're gone to me.
	In every contact number, anything I've had for them, it's almost like they never existed.
	And I'm not exaggerating about that either.
	I have no idea what's happened to them.
	In view of what they were working on, well, your guess is as good as mine, and I suspect very much like mine.
	We'll be right back.
	This is almost old news, but not really.
	I had reported that the decision was not in on the Hubble, and it indeed might have been allowed to just die.
	Well, it's not going to happen.
	The decision finally is in now on the Hubble, and it is saved.
	NASA announced Tuesday, a week ago now, that it's going to go ahead with one final space shuttle mission.
	Hooray to repair and upgrade Hubble after months of debate over the risks of such an endeavor.
	We're going to add a shuttle servicing mission of the Hubble Space Telescope to the shuttle's manifest to be flown before it retires, according to the NASA chief at the Goddard Space Center in Baltimore, Maryland.
	And he said, this is a day that I've wanted to get to for the last 18 months, so hooray, Hubble is indeed going to be saved.
	Have you heard about the new island?
	I suspect so.
	Another indication of the high level of volcanic activity worldwide is that we seem to have a new island.
	It's in the South Pacific, near Tonga.
	And it's pretty big.
	An area so isolated that, well, nobody had seen it.
	Nobody had noticed.
	That it suddenly appeared.
	A cruising yacht and a fishing boat have both reported sailing into a vast area of floating pumice.
	The captain of the fishing boat reports seeing the island itself, which is, they say, about a mile across.
	Tonga authorities have not commented on the existence of the island, and the Bulletin of the Global Volcanism Network has stated that a large plume of pumice has been sighted near Fiji, and they're seeking its source.
	The appearance of a new island suggests extensive underwater volcanic activity in the area, which is presently not being detected.
	So, a new island.
	Now, I wonder, how does that work?
	Now, for example, here in the Philippines, where we are comprised of 7,107 islands, you can buy an island.
	Now, there's a lot of downsides, in my opinion, to buying an island.
	For one, you're responsible for everything.
	In other words, you've got to manage your own electrical power, you've got to manage your own clear, you know, drinkable water and that sort of thing.
	So, buying an island is not a small endeavor, even though they're eminently affordable.
	Owning your own island would be kind of cool in a lot of ways, wouldn't it?
	Well, there'd be a lot to it.
	Not as easy as you think.
	And I actually gave it a little thought.
	You can look at some of the listings to buy an island.
	And honestly, they are not that expensive.
	It's what comes after, I think, that would cost quite a bit.
	The possibility that global warming will trigger abrupt climate change is something people might not want to think about.
	In fact, I know they don't want to think about it, based on the fact that I've had so many responses saying I'd rather not think about it.
	But there's a scientist named Angel, that's appropriate, isn't it?
	Looking at ways to cool the Earth in an emergency, just in case we all decide not to look at it until it's too late.
	He's been studying the practicality of, get this, deploying a space sunshade in global warming crisis of some sort.
	A crisis where it becomes clear that Earth is unmistakably headed for disastrous climate change within a decade or two.
	Our angel presented the idea at the National Academy of Sciences in April, won a NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts grant for further research in July.
	His collaborators on the grant are David Miller of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Nick Wolfe of UA's Stewart Observatory, and NASA Ames Research Center Director Pete Worden.
	So there's a lot of high-priced intellectual talent behind this.
	Angel is now publishing a first detailed scholarly-like paper, Feasibility of Cooling Earth, get this,
	with a cloud of small spacecraft near L1 in the proceedings of the National Laboratory
	Academy of Sciences.
	And to be launching a constellation of trillions of small, free-flying spacecraft a million
	miles above Earth into an orbit aligned with the sun called the L1 orbit.
	The spacecraft would form a long cylindrical cloud with a diameter about half that of Earth and about ten times longer.
	About 10% of the sunlight passing through the 60,000 mile length of the cloud, pointing lengthwise between the Earth and the Sun, would in fact be diverted away from our planet.
	So we get 10% less light.
	The effect would be to uniformly reduce the sunlight by about 2%, I guess, over the entire planet.
	Just enough to balance the heating of a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere.
	Well, I like this idea.
	Much better than another NASA-generated idea.
	Which was, I thought, very risky.
	And they really thought about this.
	It was to find a very large rock, you know, a near-Earth orbiting, or Earth-passing, I guess would be a more appropriate way to put it, asteroid, something big, and then move it a little bit so that it just grazes Earth enough to move Earth a little farther away from the Sun, Which would also have a very, you know, cooling effect on the planet, since we'd be farther away from the Sun.
	And then, when global warming reverses itself someday, they would take another rock, have it come close to the Earth, And move us back into the original orbit.
	Now you can imagine there's a slight room for error here.
	And any error in such a scheme would be catastrophic for everybody on Earth.
	So I didn't like that idea as much.
	Seems a little less risky, but anything that really toys with Mother Nature, like to, you know, eliminating, putting up a giant sunshade and eliminating 2% of the sunlight that would otherwise reach Earth, might have consequences that we haven't quite fully computed at this point.
	Let's take a call in this half hour.
	First time caller line in Las Vegas.
	Richard, you're on the air.
	Hello, Mark.
	I'm so sorry I didn't get this call through last night on Veterans Day.
	That's quite all right.
	It has to do with our illegal alien situation.
	I was watching coverage of Veterans Day yesterday and couldn't help notice that several thousand non-citizen soldiers serving in Iraq were yesterday awarded their citizenship.
	Now why are we still arguing about How to create a path to citizenship for illegal aliens, when this one has already existed, let everybody serve the country for a couple of years.
	Well, I mean there are... It's certainly a thought, and I guess I don't argue.
	With anybody who really gets out there and fights for America, you know, they're risking their lives.
	So if they join the service, fight for America, awarding them citizenship does seem appropriate.
	So I guess we agree on that.
	And how do you get Washington off the ground on it?
	I'm just reading Richard C. Hoagland's book from 2001, how you guys flooded NASA with tens of thousands of taxes to get those laws released.
	Why don't we Blood Washington with our faxes suggesting something like this.
	Well, of course not.
	They can't think of it themselves.
	Well, you know, first of all, apparently they have thought of it because they are to some degree doing it, right?
	They are doing it, but not everybody is of an appropriate age or even sex to be put in uniform and go fight for us.
	I mean, if you look at the general population, what percentage of all of us Are fit to go and fight.
	I'm not of an age anymore, obviously, where I could go and fight.
	And so a lot of potential immigrants, legal or otherwise, would not be appropriate fighters.
	But for those that are, yes, it certainly seems like a very good idea to me.
	An excellent idea.
	Wild Card Line, you're on the air without a whole lot of time.
	Steve in Boston.
	Oh, hi Art.
	It's been a long time since I've been able to get on.
	I think I've won lottery.
	Welcome back.
	Listening to you for the last three or four years, I always look forward to it.
	I just wanted to make a statement about the blackout of information on the part of our government.
	And when you think of it, it seems like a worldwide blackout of information.
	I don't know of any other government formally proclaiming that these extraterrestrials exist.
	The other blackout of information would be from these supreme beings themselves, who have the ability to come across infinite space, pay us a visit, and then not make any attempt to formally announce who they are, where they're from.
	They must have, if they have the ability to do what they do, they must have the ability to broadcast.
	All right, listen, hold on.
	Hold on through the break if you're able to and I'll bring it back.
	We've got a break right here.
	I'm Mark Bell from Manila in the Philippines.
	We'll be right back.
	Here I am indeed.
	Listen, those of you that are not getting the most recent webcam photo, There are a couple of reasons that could be happening in the world of computers.
	One is the cache.
	You have what's called cache in your browser, and it may well be that that's what you're seeing, or, and this would be out of your hands, it may be that your internet provider has a server which has cache and in order to make you think that you're getting a faster connection than you really are what it does is it keeps this cache in the server because it knows you select this particular web page again and again so it keeps delivering the same thing to you because it's already got that stored up doesn't have to use bandwidth to go and get whatever is new so if you don't get the latest picture you might first try the cache in your browser and if that doesn't work
	Then you're kind of out of luck until your provider decides not to cache that particular web page and give you the latest picture.
	It's happened to me over here too, so some of it's within your grasp to fix and some of it is not.
	In a moment, we'll get back to Steve in Boston, Massachusetts.
	don't forget, top of the hour, Professor Ronald Mallet, who thinks he's got a time machine.
	Alright Steve, thanks for waiting buddy.
	You're back on the air from Boston.
	Okay, I just wanted to make the point that the blackout also seems to come from these entities themselves.
	They travel across infinite space to come here, and then they must have the ability to broadcast their presence.
	Maybe they don't want to.
	Apparently they don't want to, and I find that pretty amazing.
	They could easily override the blackout of information on the part of our government.
	Well, they could, but perhaps if you watch, look, if you watch Star Trek, you know about the Prime Directive.
	And the Prime Directive seems to make absolute common sense, even though it comes from a science fiction series, and that is not to interfere in a culture or a civilization many, many, many, perhaps thousands or millions of years earlier than your own.
	And so maybe that's why they don't do it.
	Maybe they're just observing.
	Well, if they wanted to, they could.
	I know.
	I agree with you.
	If they wanted to, but again, I think the Prime Directive makes common sense if you just sit and think about it for a little while.
	I do think we're being observed, but obviously if they wanted to contact us, they would be able to contact us.
	Enough evidence to indicate that we are being observed, all of us, by somebody.
	Now, here's another thing that has frequently crossed my mind.
	When did this observation begin?
	Roughly when we detonated the first nuclear device.
	That would be observed far out into space.
	Far, light years away it would be observed.
	And that's when most of the reports, most of the sightings began.
	Right?
	And that's always made an awful lot of sense to me.
	So I think we're being observed.
	Obviously, if they wanted to contact us, they would do so.
	I don't think they'd have any difficulty doing that at all.
	Let's go to the west of the Rockies line and say, Daniel, you're on the air from New Mexico.
	Hi Art, it's a pleasure to talk to you.
	Hi.
	Hi, I have a kind of a silly question for you.
	Seeing as there's so much debate as to whether or not we ever landed on the Moon, has anybody ever attempted to view it from Earth to see if we can see like the flag on the Moon?
	Has anybody ever tried to set up a telescope and view that here from Earth?
	They've done it.
	They have done it?
	Yes, it's been done.
	That was just on my mind, thanks.
	Oh, you're very welcome.
	Yes, to the very best of my knowledge, it has been done.
	They've seen where the lander was, that sort of thing.
	I think there have been additional pictures from some of the orbiting satellites that we've put around the moon, that sort of thing.
	I'm not one of those who doubts for a second that we went to the moon.
	I'm somebody who is intensely curious about why we haven't gone back and why we haven't gone further.
	I really think there's more to that than meets the eye.
	Not only has the US not done it, but nobody else has either.
	We've sent a lot of mechanical things to and past the moon, and much further out, but have we actually sent men?
	No.
	Isn't that curious?
	Doesn't that spark your curiosity a little bit?
	Of course, everybody can say it's money, and it is very expensive to send men to the moon and back, or Mars, or whatever.
	But the fact that we did it so long ago now and have never done it again, that is suspicious.
	East of the Rockies, Scott, you're on the air in Redding.
	Good morning.
	Hi.
	I wanted to ask you another question about the status of those missing NASA tapes from the lunar landing in 1969.
	Do you have any leads on those?
	No.
	What is your speculation, what we might have seen there That they don't want the public to know about.
	And I'll hang up and wait for your response.
	Okay, the answer is something.
	How could those tapes possibly be missing?
	I mean, look at the size of the achievement.
	It's clearly mankind's biggest modern achievement.
	How could those tapes, the high-resolution tapes that we never got to see, how could they be missing?
	How could they be missing?
	Or the Roswell stuff.
	Suddenly, when we had congressional interest in the Roswell information, it was revealed that it was destroyed.
	Now, how could that be?
	How could that possibly be?
	So, there's something here.
	I mean, look, there are a lot of people out there who believe in various conspiracies.
	So, when you put together the fact that man went to the moon, hasn't been back for whatever reason, And when man went to the moon, he got high-resolution video that we were never able to see because they lost it.
	And then Roswell, all the records of Roswell, which is certainly the best documented, best case for extraterrestrial visitation to the Earth that we've ever had, and all of the records are mysteriously missing.
	Now, if those of you who grab on to even the smallest conspiracies can't see something here, then what kind of conspiratorial person are you anyway?
	Obviously something's going on.
	Wildcard Line, Casey in Tennessee, you're on the air.
	Hello, Art.
	Great to speak with you.
	I just wanted to say some things about the Iraq War.
	I believe that the situation we're in there is in dire straits somewhat, but that it's
	best handled by our generals there.
	It seems like they would have the most proper way of dealing with it.
	But what I've heard over the past few years is that we're about to have a transformation
	of the military, an acceleration of technological prowess, if you will.
	Don't you think, Art, that that could be where the solution lies in the rollout of technologies
	like that and the ability to gain control and hope through that?
	What kind of technology would allow us to gain control?
	Well, for example, like if you had, say, like omnidirectional microphones placed out that could, you know, through triangulation detect where gunshots and explosions and things of that nature were, then we're able to respond to them more quickly with With maximum force, or possibly the ability to oversee the country with, I don't know, maybe spy planes or whatever you want to call them, just to keep an eye on the place and try to really control it from an omniscient point of view.
	Because, I mean, when you look at it, if you don't do that, then you're just prolonging The effort, and it seems like it would be worth staying there until we could prove that we're able to do that.
	All right, Casey.
	Well, all right.
	Well, here's what I think.
	Number one, I think we already have the very best technology deployed there that we've got.
	Technology really is no match for a counterinsurgency.
	In other words, human feet on the ground.
	I think, you know, people get so upset when I do this, but very much like in Vietnam, I think this war now is being lost from a PR point of view.
	And I think since the election and the obvious increase in violence, not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan as well.
	Is a signal that the other side saw the elections, saw the message sent to the President, and now is bound and determined to underscore it as hard as they can to get us to pull out, to quit.
	Now maybe the people who want us to do that are right.
	I don't know.
	It wouldn't be my choice.
	I certainly was against the Iraq War.
	Somebody wrote earlier, that's not true.
	No, no, I was avidly, for the long-time listeners who know me, I was avidly against going into Iraq.
	I knew it would become a quagmire, as it has become.
	But once there, then I guess I felt we should finish the job.
	How we do that?
	That's another question.
	What happens if we just decide to pull up stakes and leave?
	Well, I think in the long run, nothing good.
	So, there is a parallel to Vietnam, and I'm sorry to say that, and I'm sorry that I believe that, because I know it makes a lot of people angry, but there really is.
	We did lose in Vietnam.
	I got a lot of flack over that one, too.
	People saying, we didn't lose in Vietnam, didn't we?
	Yes, we did.
	Clearly, we did lose in Vietnam, and we're on the verge of losing in Iraq.
	As well.
	But that loss will not be a military loss.
	That loss will be the American people saying, we've had enough, and we want out.
	That's what the American people have said, and I think ultimately now, that's the path the administration will follow.
	So, we'll see what happens.
	Let's go to, I guess, the International Line, and from New Brunswick, Canada, James, you're on the air.
	Hi Art, how are you doing?
	Just fine.
	I'm calling about global warming and the politicians.
	They're making such a big deal about Kyoto and global warming.
	Yes.
	There's a company in France for the past about 12 years.
	They've developed and they're manufacturing a car that operates on compressed air.
	It can travel a maximum 220 kilometers an hour and it gets about 280 kilometers on a full tank of air.
	Full tank of air.
	You know, I've heard of this.
	It's called the Aircar with MDI Industries in France.
	Okay, here would be a couple of questions since you're obviously more familiar with it than I am.
	It would take energy to pump the compressed air, yes?
	Yes, but that's only about three minutes or five minutes, whatever it is.
	Okay.
	Do you have any information on it?
	Could you send me something on markbellatminespring.com?
	I did send an email, my son did, to George Norrie.
	Okay.
	The website and all that.
	He has a website.
	Well, I'd like to know more about it.
	Okay.
	Perhaps it has real possibilities and, you know, I guess it would not take that much energy to compress that air, as you point out, so maybe it's a real winner.
	Who knows?
	Well, that's what I was thinking, like, for pollution in cities and all that, and it doesn't solve the entire oil consumption problem, but for For carbon dioxide in major cities, you know, if people drove them, it'd be alright.
	All right, listen, direct one of those emails, if you would, to me, and that goes for the rest of you, too.
	Anybody who would like to send me an email, you're more than welcome to.
	I love to read them.
	I can't answer them all.
	There's no way I can possibly answer them all, but the important ones to answer or to respond to, I have certainly begun to do so.
	I am artbell at mindspring.com.
	That's A-R-T.
	B-E-L-L at Minespring, M-I-N-D-S-P-R-I-N-G dot com.
	I'm also Art Bell at A-O-L dot com, but the mailbox is not quite as large and the one at Minespring is nearly endless as long as I keep downloading.
	So Art Bell at Minespring dot com.
	On the first time caller line, it's Scott from Tulsa.
	Hi.
	Hey, how's it going?
	Just fine.
	I wanted to talk to you real quick about the possibility of terrorist communication through online gaming.
	Like, have you heard of SOCOM for the PlayStation?
	Um, I've just heard of it, yes.
	Okay, well what it is, it's an arming game and you sign into an online server through your PlayStation and you actually have headsets where you can talk to 16 other players on your team.
	Right.
	And there's so many freaking rooms that are on this thing, and there's so many conversations going on at once, that I think that terrorists could easily get on there and communicate without being noticed.
	Well, I suppose that's a concern, but there's a zillion ways on the internet they can communicate.
	They can actually use encryption programs.
	Well, did you see the recent case where somebody accused of a crime Had a hard drive and even the FBI was unable to break the encryption that he had used and it was my impression he had used something very simple like one of the free encryption programs that you can get on the internet.
	So there's a million different ways they can really talk.
	I also think that our Greyhound bus stations are severely vulnerable.
	Like if you go to a Greyhound station there's maybe like one security guard there and there's no metal detectors at all.
	Right.
	Well, it's interesting to wonder why the United States has not yet begun to suffer what they do in the Middle East and Europe, and that is, you know, people strapping bombs on, that kind of thing.
	We haven't had it yet.
	Yeah, that's about to say a lot of it.
	It just hasn't happened yet to get someone to go, hey, we need to fix that.
	Well, there you go.
	So he thinks our buses need more security.
	I don't know.
	You can picture the U.S.
	as finally becoming sort of an armed camp of security.
	It's very much like that.
	We were talking about that yesterday on the program.
	You don't feel it as much, but as an American, you certainly notice it here in the Philippines.
	Nearly every business has a guard, even restaurants.
	Now, these guys carry what amounts to sawed-off shotguns.
	And they double as door openers and greeters, and they're very nice and very pleasant.
	But it is my understanding they definitely know how to use the weapon they hold.
	And I just don't know that Americans would want the U.S.
	to turn into that, some kind of armed camp, where you see... It's also in the Middle East.
	Go to Israel, and you will see more guns than you'll see in a whole lifetime in one day in Israel.
	Well, to some degree it's like that here.
	Not everybody carries one openly.
	But you see armed guards virtually everywhere.
	And one of the great things about the U.S.
	has always been, you don't have that.
	And I don't think we want that.
	Whether ultimately it can be avoided or not is another question.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Mike in Utah.
	Yeah, Mike.
	Art, how you doing?
	I'm listening to you on XM Radio trucking across Utah.
	Two quick items.
	Number one, why your time travelers seem to disappear, and the second one is a problem with global dimming, if you shield the Earth from sunshine.
	First, your time travelers, if they have a machine that they have to get into and push a button, requires energy, and they set themselves back to commune with the dinosaurs, they get there and they have no power to get back into the machine, or the machine does not travel with them.
	So, if they do travel back in time, they have no means to get back.
	And secondly, the problem with global dimming, if you shield the Earth from sunlight, they have studies here on Earth from agronomists, that if you have a 10-15% reduction of sunlight, that messes up the evaporation rate of the groundwater, and so you do not get the evaporation into the atmosphere for humidity and cloud formation, so you actually create droughts over large areas.
	And I saw a Discovery Channel on this quite a while back about the Israeli agriculture minister and a couple guys down in Australia, and that's what they've come up with, that by shielding the Earth, whatever means, either with space-based or chemtrails or whatever, You decrease the evaporation rate, which further dries out the air, and you mess up the whole climate downstream.
	Okay, Mike, I think I've got it.
	And, you know, I agree with you.
	I mean, anything we would do to avert a crisis has a potential downside, you know, has potential backlash, if you will.
	But it may come to a point where the crisis is so big and the potential disaster just ahead of us so serious that we do try something like that.
	From Manila, in the Philippines, where the sun shines, I'm Art Bell.
	That's very good.
	That's exactly on the mark for what we're about to do.
	My favorite subject of all time, so to speak.
	Ronald Mallet, professor, Ronald Mallet, PhD indeed, a professor of theoretical physics at the University of Connecticut.
	He is also a member of both the American Physical Society and the National Society of Black Physicists.
	He has a B.S., M.S., and Ph.D.
	in physics from Pennsylvania State University.
	The oldest of four children, Ron's life changed forever when his beloved father died of a heart attack.
	The ten-year-old, he was only ten, was overwhelmed with grief until he read a copy of The Time Machine by H.G.
	Wells.
	He was determined to make Wells' fantasy a reality by going back in time to see his father.
	Remarkably, not only did the boy from the Bronx stick with the vision, becoming one of the country's few African-American PhDs in theoretical physics, but Mallet has, according to many peers in the field, developed new theories relating to Einstein's general theory of relativity that plausibly argue for the existence of time travel into the past.
	In addition, Ron's time travel research has been featured in an hour-long TV special on The Learning Channel, the world's first time machine.
	Now, if you go to CostaCoastAM.com right now under Featured Article, right at the very top, you will see Time Travel Graphic.
	Professor Ron Mallett shares a graphic that basically shows the principles behind his time travel theory.
	View it here.
	You're going to want to click on that.
	Because we're going to have the professor kind of explain this as we go along.
	So in a moment, Professor Ronald Mallett.
	Sir Ronald Mallett, welcome to the program.
	Thank you, Art.
	It's good to have you here.
	I should warn you, though, Professor, I've had over now many, many years A number of people on the subject of time travel that have said they have done time travel or have an active, ready machine.
	And honest to God, this is not a program promo kind of deal or anything else.
	These people have disappeared.
	They're gone.
	Every single last one of them.
	They're just gone.
	I'm not saying that they're gone in time, but it's almost like they are.
	They might as well be.
	They're the only people who have virtually disappeared.
	So, I guess we'll get to that as we talk about time travel.
	And the first obvious question is, is time travel, is it really possible?
	Yes, Art, it really is.
	And most people don't realize that.
	I mean, they think of time travel as being science fiction, but it is, in fact, science fact, and it has been done.
	It's important to realize, though, that it's based on Einstein's theories of relativity.
	And I would be highly suspect of any time travel developments that weren't, but those based on Einstein's theory are sound.
	Now, I'm a neophyte here in a lot of ways.
	I thought Einstein basically said that time travel was not possible.
	Oh, no.
	Quite the opposite.
	In fact, in old physics, the so-called physics of Newton that we're familiar with in the everyday world, says that time is absolute.
	It doesn't change.
	Nothing can change it.
	But in Einstein's theory, particularly his so-called special theory of relativity, Einstein showed that time is affected by motion.
	That is to say, a clock.
	The faster you move a clock, the more time slows down.
	And this, in fact, has been demonstrated in many, many situations.
	And in fact, one of the most famous ones that happened recently was in the 1970s, where If you have an atomic clock, an atomic clock is the most precise timekeeping mechanism that we have.
	And what was done was two atomic clocks were synchronized, and one was kept stationary at the Naval Observatory, and another was put on an ordinary passenger jet.
	And this jet was flown around the world at close to the speed of sound.
	When the jet came back, they compared the two atomic clocks.
	What they found was that the atomic clock that was on the jet had actually slowed down compared to the clock that was stationary.
	This means that the atomic clock that was on the jet had actually slowed down because it was moving so quickly.
	By how much, Professor?
	It was only about 40 nanoseconds.
	It turns out that the faster you go, the more time slows down, and what this demonstrated was the principle.
	This means that if we were able to go sufficiently fast, and for example, NASA's in fact trying to develop rockets, engines that can theoretically go close to the speed of light eventually, that you would find that it wouldn't just slow down by 40 nanoseconds, you could have it's time slowing down by days, hours, months, years.
	So the fact, the closer you go to the speed of light, the more it slows down.
	But what this demonstrated with the clocks on the jet was the fact that time does slow down with speed.
	Alright, but what I've always wanted and I sense what you definitely want is not
	a fast rocket or a fast plane, but a machine that can somehow achieve the same goal, yes?
	Oh, that's right, that's right.
	Well, the thing is, is that what my interest, of course, was the time machine that could go into the past.
	In a sense, even a rocket is a machine that can go into the future.
	I mean, one of the things that you have to realize is that if time is slowing down, that means that everyone that was on board that jet plane, their heart rate, their metabolism, these are clocks.
	This means that all your metabolic processes, all your physiological processes were slowing down.
	In other words, you were aging less.
	This means that the faster that you were going, the less that you aged compared to everyone else.
	So, in a sense, you were able to go into the future compared to everyone else who was stationary.
	So, traveling on a rocket would take you into the future.
	But if you wanted to have a device that was stationary, you could actually do it by using gravity.
	Here's an off-the-wall question, Professor.
	What about pilots and aircrew who on a regularly scheduled basis Uh, traverse the Earth, you know, make flights from the U.S.
	to, for example, where I am here in the Philippines.
	In other words, the other side of the world.
	And back and forth, back and forth.
	They're doing this all the time.
	Is there any collective effect on people like that?
	Oh, it is, yes.
	The thing is, is that, however, the collective effect is still very, very small.
	I mean, since we're talking about, you know, fractions of a second, it would not be noticeable, but it is there, in fact, and it is a cumulative effect.
	For example, the astronauts who were circling the Earth at very high speeds for very long periods of time, they are, in a sense, the first time travelers, and the cumulative effect is there.
	So yes, that happens.
	But as I said, since the speeds, even going in a rocket, if you're going 25,000 miles per hour, which is very, very fast, the effect is still only fractions of a second.
	You would have to go quite fast in order to see it in a very noticeable amount.
	But yes, you might say that they're time traveling every time they get into one of their jets.
	Okay, the question of why you got interested in time travel, I think, is answered in your bio.
	You lost your dad at 10 years of age.
	That really began it all?
	Yes, because when he died, I mean, it devastated me.
	And I wanted to find a way of, well, at the time, I didn't have any recourse except grief.
	And it was a little bit more than a year after that he died that My life was changed by reading.
	I mean, that was one of the gifts that he left me, was this thirst to read and to learn.
	And I came across H.G.
	Wells' book, The Time Machine, and that is what changed everything for me.
	It was sort of a turning point in my life.
	And what I realized as a child was that, let's suppose that I could build a time machine, then I could go back into the past.
	Not only see him again, but warn him about his death.
	So it actually became an obsession with me to want to build a time machine to go back into the past to see him again.
	Boy, I can understand.
	I really can understand that.
	And so that drove you ultimately to a PhD in physics, huh?
	Well, yeah.
	Not quite so quickly as it sounds.
	No.
	Of course.
	Excuse me.
	No.
	Well, one of the things is that, and I mentioned this, I've written a book recently called Time Traveler that has just come out, and one of the things I do in that book is to actually tell the details of the story.
	The book is actually an autobiography as well as a pop science book to try to explain to people exactly what we understand about time travel.
	And the road was complicated and not quite that straight.
	I mean, one of the things is that I didn't have anyone to guide me, and when I had this notion of building a time machine, I was astute enough, even as a child, to realize that since people saw me in a rather depressed state, that I better keep this notion of building a time machine a secret, because they might seriously wonder what was happening to me.
	And I would imagine through a great deal of your early career it would have to have been kept secret.
	That's right.
	And the thing that gave me courage, that it wasn't a crazy notion, was the fact that a few years after I came across H.G.
	Wells' book, I came across a popular science book on Einstein.
	And when I read the book, this was my first encounter with the great genius, I read that Einstein, in fact, said that time could be changed, and it could be affected by motion.
	And I thought, wow, this is wonderful.
	This means that since time is something that can be changed, then there is a possibility that time travel is possible, and what H.G.
	Wells was saying could happen.
	And so, once again, I kept it to myself, but I wanted to learn more and more about what this Einstein said.
	But even though I knew he was a physicist, you know, my father was a television repairman, and my notion was to somehow maybe use electronics as a way of doing it.
	So, my original direction was to actually consider electrical engineering rather than physics.
	And the other thing is that, well, you know, it's funny, but physics, as it was taught at the time that I was taking it in my high school, was taught by a rather person who wasn't a particularly inspired teacher.
	And so I didn't feel particularly inspired to go into physics.
	That may sound really surprising, but that was so.
	However, I had some wonderful math teachers, and so the thing is that I became enthralled with mathematics, and it was that way that I began to understand more and more about his ideas.
	But I was a poor family, so college was not something that was automatically in my future, and I knew that if I was going to get to college at all, I was going to have to do it in an indirect way, which I did by going into the service.
	the Air Force in particular.
	And so that, as I said, there's much more to the story than that,
	but that was some of it.
	But eventually I was led to the road to physics and realized that that was the only way that I was going to
	be able to do this.
	And once again, I learned more and more about Einstein's theories,
	and the more I learned, the more I realized that not only time travel was possible,
	but the possibility of building a time machine was there.
	Let me stop you there.
	I do understand the notion of speed and time.
	I've got that.
	I understand, I do understand the notion of speed and time.
	I've got that.
	But then what I don't understand is how a machine could even conceivably be possible
	because of course with a machine you don't have the kind of motion we're talking about
	whether it be a jet aircraft or something even close to the speed of light.
	You don't have any of that.
	All you've got is a machine.
	Right.
	So obviously there's something very much that I don't understand and I'm sitting here looking at your graphic right now on the Coast website.
	Could you explain to me, sort of basically, maybe so that the majority of us can understand, without the motion that we're talking about, how can you possibly imagine a machine that would accomplish it?
	Right.
	Very, very good point.
	And to do that, you have to go to Einstein's second theory.
	What most people don't realize, when they hear of Einstein's theory of relativity, they think of it as one theory.
	Einstein had actually developed two theories.
	The first theory, as you were pointing out, actually has to do with speed and time.
	That's the Special Theory of Relativity.
	The second theory was called the General Theory of Relativity, and it has to do with gravity.
	And in that theory, Einstein said that gravity can slow down time also.
	In other words, the stronger you have a gravitational field, the more time can slow down.
	Now, let me use the example of the atomic clocks again.
	Let's suppose that you take two atomic clocks, If you're at the surface of the Earth, because you're at the surface of the Earth and you're closer to the center of the Earth, gravity is stronger there than if you're at the top of a mountain.
	If you're at the top of a mountain, you're farther from the center of the Earth, and gravity is weaker at the top of a mountain.
	Right.
	So if you take two atomic clocks, one at sea level and one at the top of a mountain, what has been found is that the clock at sea level runs slower.
	than one at the top of the mountain.
	That means that... you see?
	Right.
	Yes, of course I do.
	So the gravitational influence on the one close to sea level
	is indeed changing time.
	Exactly.
	And in fact, this has extremely important practical consequences
	because the GPS satellites, the clocks that are on board those satellites,
	are so far away from the center of the Earth that they are running at a different rate
	than the clocks on the surface of the Earth.
	So, computer signals actually have to be sent to, you know, keep them synchronized.
	So, this actually, this aspect of Einstein's theory actually has everyday consequences for us.
	Now, here we come back to the notion of a machine.
	Now, if you're in a gravitational field, that means that if you can somehow make A stronger gravitational field locally, that will slow time down without motion.
	You just need to make gravity stronger.
	The question is how can you do that?
	Well, one way of doing it would be to go to a place where gravity is much stronger than it is here on the surface of the Earth.
	By going to another planet, for example, like Jupiter, where gravity is much greater, clocks would slow down more.
	The extreme case of a gravitating body that would slow time down would be a black hole.
	A black hole is, just to remind you, is a star that has collapsed to a point where all the light that tries to come from the star, since the gravity is so strong as the star collapses, all the light that tries to leave the star gets pulled back to the star because gravity is pulling it back.
	If you're standing outside, since all the light is being pulled back to the star, you
	see nothing.
	That's what you mean by a black hole.
	If you can't see anything, then it's a black hole there.
	Now, it turns out that, as I pointed out, since gravity can slow time down, if you would
	take a clock or yourself close to a black hole, time would slow down so much that you
	could be near the black hole for, let's say, just a few hours, but yet hundreds of years
	could be passing everywhere else.
	So if you left, if you didn't go too close to the black hole, if you got near it but didn't go inside of it, you could come back away from the black hole and find out that you had only aged maybe hours, a few hours, but yet a hundred years had passed everywhere else.
	Is that survivable?
	It's survivable if you don't cross the event horizon.
	If you don't cross the region where the light signals are being pulled back, then yes, you can do it.
	But if you pass the region where the light signals are being pulled back, then forget it.
	There's no way that you can get out of the black hole.
	So in a sense, a black hole could be used as a time machine, but you have to get to a black hole in order to do that.
	The notion is that it's impossible to do it here on the Earth.
	And what I have found is that, once again, based on Einstein's theory, that you can manipulate gravity locally.
	And that's where light comes into this picture.
	It turns out that not only in Newton's theory, classical theory, light does not have a gravitational effect.
	However, in Einstein's theory, not only does matter have a gravitational effect, but light itself Can create gravity.
	This means that light can slow time down.
	Okay, that's a new one on me.
	I thought that gravity was only a function of mass.
	Is that not correct?
	Is it correct?
	That is correct.
	That is correct, but that's only half the story.
	And that's usually all that one finds when one's reading, you know, standard books.
	But according to Einstein's theory, not only can mass, but light itself can create gravity.
	Okay, so, and as I said, that this is not all that well known, and of course, in Newton's theory,
	only matter can create gravity.
	So, you might say the key to my discovery is that aspect of Einstein's theory, that light can create gravity, so the light can affect time.
	Hold it right there, Professor.
	We're at a break point, so just relax for a few minutes.
	Isn't that fascinating?
	Can create gravity.
	Now, I wonder how you would set about proving that point.
	Certainly, there's a lot of light that comes from our star, so some sort of measurement with regard to the sun seems to me ought to prove it.
	Maybe.
	I'm Art Bell.
	This is Coast to Coast AM on Time Travel.
	Professor Ronald Mallet is my guest, the subject, my favorite, time travel.
	Listen, if you go to the website, coasttocoastam.com, you'll see a graphic.
	This graphic is really fascinating, particularly based on what the professor just said, that light can affect time.
	If that's true, then reading the graphic, ha ha, at the top of the graphic it says you will see a loop, and inside the loop there's a light beam.
	Time is warped into a loop, it says.
	Then, down below that, what was time outside of the circle of light is now space, so he can walk, meaning our time traveler, he can walk into our past.
	And then down at the bottom, if he walks out of the loop, he may see himself waiting To go in.
	That's kind of eerie stuff.
	So we are talking about, in fact, time travel.
	Courtesy of light.
	And this is backed by Einstein's general theory of relativity.
	So in a moment we'll get back to Professor Ronald Mallet.
	Go to the graphic and take a look.
	I'm Art Bell.
	Well alright professor, uh...
	Let's see, where were we?
	We were talking about light, and you were saying that light can affect time.
	Is there any way to prove that?
	Right.
	Well, there is, in fact.
	And this is one of the things that I mentioned in my book, Time Traveler, is the fact that you can, because of the fact that since light has energy, and Remember the famous equals MC squared?
	That means that you can consider that if light has energy, it has almost like a mass sort of equivalent.
	And since mass can create gravity, then the energy of light, even though light doesn't have mass, it can create gravity too.
	And you could do, if you have a strong enough light beam, you could actually show that time is slowing down.
	And what my idea is, is to actually not use a single, is to use a light beam, but not just simply have it moving in a single direction, but to create a circulating light beam.
	And you might say, you know, how do you create a circulating light beam?
	And what does this do?
	Uh, you can actually create it, uh, a number of different ways.
	Uh, you could actually set up a series of mirrors and have a light beam, uh, if you think of, uh, of a square, say, and you have four mirrors at each corner of the square.
	Right.
	Then you could actually have a light beam coming from one of the mirrors, hitting each mirror at each corner and going around the square.
	That would create a circulating beam of light.
	And what this light does is One of the things that we haven't talked about is what gravity is in Einstein's theory.
	We think of gravity as being something that is sort of a pull of one object on another.
	In other words, the Sun pulls on the Earth, or the Earth pulls on us.
	But what you have to remember in Einstein's theory is that that pull of gravity is actually something of an illusion.
	That in Einstein's theory, gravity is actually a bending of space.
	That's something we can't see.
	Now, this is going to take a little bit of explanation for me to make clear what I mean by a bending of space.
	Let's use an example of Let's say something like a trampoline.
	Let's say you have a rubber sheet, a taunt rubber sheet, and suppose that you take a bowling ball and you put it on that rubber sheet.
	Now, think of the rubber sheet as representing empty space, and think of this bowling ball that you're going to put on it as representing something like the sun.
	Now, if you put the bowling ball on the rubber sheet, it's going to cause the rubber sheet to bend, right?
	Absolutely.
	Okay.
	Now, suppose that you took a little marble and you were to set it on the rubber sheet somewhere, some point away from the bowling ball.
	What's going to happen?
	It's going to run right down toward the bowling ball.
	Exactly.
	Now, suppose that the rubber sheet that's there, suppose it's transparent.
	So, it's there, but you can't see it anymore, alright?
	Right, right.
	So, all you can see now is the bowling ball and the marble.
	So, what would you think then, when you have the marble there, as it's rolling towards the bowling ball?
	You would think that somehow the bowling ball is pulling on the marble because you can't see the rubber sheet anymore, right?
	You certainly would, yes.
	Exactly.
	Well, that is the basis of Einstein's great discovery about gravity.
	What he said is that the Sun is curving the empty space around it.
	I just got it!
	Okay?
	And the Earth is just simply like that marble that is moving around the curvature that's created.
	And it looks to us like it's a pull of the sun on the Earth, but it isn't.
	It's actually the sun bending the empty space around it, and the Earth is just moving in
	that bent space.
	Got it.
	You're actually the first person who's been able to explain that to me in a way I can
	understand.
	I'm sure a lot of the audience just got it as well.
	Thank you.
	But that's the point.
	The thing is that what matter can do is actually bend space, and light can do the same thing.
	Light can actually cause space to bend, okay?
	Now, in Einstein's theory, not only does space get affected, but time gets affected by matter.
	Now, the bending of time, space and time in Einstein's theory are linked to each other.
	In other words, whatever you do to space, it affects time.
	Now, you might say, how does this bending of time look?
	Well, this bending of time looks to us like what we call the slowing down of a clock.
	In other words, the way in which we see the bending of time is that a clock slows down.
	So, whenever I was talking about here on the Earth, the Earth is actually curving the space around it, and we here on the Earth, even though we can't see it, that's what keeps us to the surface of the Earth.
	More like the marbles.
	Right, exactly.
	And the bending of time that results from that bending of space is the slowing down of the atomic clock.
	Now, coming once again back to light, light will also cause space to become bent.
	But if you have a circulating light beam, like this bouncing of light around the mirrors I was telling you about, this will actually cause a twisting of space.
	Now, how can you imagine what this twisting of space would look like?
	Well, imagine that you have a cup of coffee sitting in front of you, okay?
	And think of the coffee in your cup as being empty space.
	And think of your spoon.
	Suppose you take your spoon and think of your spoon as being like the circulating light beam, this light beam that's going around from mirror to mirror, okay?
	Now, if you take your spoon and stir your coffee, what happens to your coffee?
	Your coffee starts swirling around, right?
	Creating a little vortex.
	Well, that's what the circulating light beam will do.
	The circulating light beam will actually cause a stirring of empty space.
	In other words, sort of a vortex of space.
	It's like a swirling of water down the drain of your sink, but you can't see it.
	So you might say, well, if I can't see it, how do I know it's there?
	Well, in the case of the coffee, if you put a little sugar cube into the coffee, alright, as the coffee's swirling around, it'll move the sugar cube around, right?
	Yes, of course.
	In the case of the empty space, what I have proposed is that if you take a little particle that's called a neutron, okay, this is a subatomic particle, it's part of the atom, and if you stick it in the empty space, It turns out that this neutron will actually get twisted around in the empty space, so you'll be able to see that the space is being twisted by looking at what happens to the neutron, a neutron if you put it into space, as the circulating light is going around.
	So you would actually be able to see the motion that you were desiring?
	Exactly.
	Now, once again, remember what I said about space and time being linked in Einstein's theory.
	Whatever happens to space happens to time.
	And what my calculations showed, once again anchored in Einstein's theory, is that not only does space get twisted, but eventually, if you cause the twisting to be strong enough, time will get twisted into a loop as well.
	Now, what does this mean?
	Unconsciously, all of us are moving along a timeline, a straight line from the past to the present to the future.
	In other words, to give you an example, suppose that you took a piece of paper, and you put
	a straight line on the piece of paper, and on the line, this line is going to represent
	time.
	And at the bottom of the line, you're going to put yesterday, the past.
	At the middle of the line, you're going to put today, the present.
	And at the top of the line, you're going to put the future, tomorrow.
	All of us in our lives move along this timeline, from yesterday to today to tomorrow.
	Now, imagine that you took this piece of paper with a line on it, and you curved it into
	a circle, into a loop, and you connected the top part of the line with the bottom of the
	line.
	Now, you're on this loop.
	You can move from the past, along the line, to the present.
	You can continue along the line to the future, but remember now, you've taken this straight line and made it into a circle.
	That means you can actually move along this line from the future back to the past.
	So, by twisting space into a loop, you can actually travel back into the past.
	And that's the core of my discovery.
	Two parts of my discovery.
	That circulating light will cause a twisting of space, and ultimately, a twisting of time.
	And along that twist of time, you can go back into the past.
	Wow.
	Alright, in your graphic, that's really fascinating.
	In your graphic, you suggest that you might well, as you walk out of this, see yourself waiting to go in.
	Now, wouldn't that be a classic, immediate paradox?
	It would appear, but it isn't.
	One of the things that you have to realize is that once you turn the device on, you've created new conditions.
	And this is what allows you to go back into the past, is the fact that you're doing this.
	And one of the ways, but it's complicated in the sense that you now have a new situation that you've created.
	Oh, you have a new situation is correct.
	So I said paradox.
	Now what I'm wondering is, it seems impossible to us that two of us could exist in the same Space, at the same time, and it's almost as though one of the two would have to cease to exist, or you suggest no.
	So what would the condition be as you walked out?
	Would you see each other, or would that be impossible, even though you're both there?
	No, you would see each other.
	You would see each other?
	Right, and you have to realize that you're not the same.
	One is the older version of you.
	You are not identical, okay?
	So number one, you're not the same person.
	You're actually a different person.
	You're an older person.
	So the person that you would be seeing Coming out of the machine would be an older version of yourself.
	And you would be seeing, as you were coming out of the machine, a younger version of yourself.
	And you're not occupying the same space.
	You're actually, at the same time, but you're actually occupying two different, you know, regions of space.
	The other thing is, is that there's another aspect to this, because as you clearly pointed out, this seems like this could lead to paradoxes.
	And you have to realize that That aspect of the theory, you have to consider another important theory of physics to consider what might happen in that particular case.
	And this other theory is as strange in itself as relativity is, and it's the other pillar of 20th century physics, and it's called quantum theory.
	And it's quantum theory that tells us how this apparent paradox that's associated with time travel in the past could be resolved.
	And it leads to an idea that is as weird as time travel, It's called the notion of parallel universes.
	But once again, what's important to realize is that this is anchored in quantum theory.
	So in quantum theory, even though the name theory is there, quantum theory is the basis that we can understand everything from the atom to cell phones.
	In other words, our cell phones wouldn't work if there wasn't quantum theory.
	So it tells us exactly how matter operates.
	Now, the thing is that what quantum theory tells us also is that the world at the atomic level operates in a way that we're not used to seeing on everyday life.
	Things can change, change their identities, particles can merge into each other, things that can happen that we don't see on an everyday level.
	And also what quantum theory tells us is that, you know, we're used to the notion that If we toss an object across the room, we can exactly tell where it's going to go when we toss it across the room.
	In quantum theory, the best that we could do is to say where it might go.
	We can't talk about how things will exactly happen.
	We can only talk about what will probably happen next.
	And to give you a very specific example of what quantum theory would imply if you apply it to everyday life, And this is anchored in a theory that was developed by a man named Hugh Everett, who was a physicist who applied quantum theory to the entire universe.
	Suppose that at lunch tomorrow, you were trying to make up your mind to have a fish sandwich or a cheeseburger.
	Now, at the very moment that you made the decision, that you decided to choose one, there is a split in the universe.
	There are two separate universes that would diverge from each other.
	There would be an Art Bell that would be in a universe that has chosen the fish sandwich, but there would also be an Art Bell in a whole new universe that has the cheeseburger.
	They would not know of each other.
	They would be two separate paths, two parallel different universes, all self-contained, and this would
	happen for every single decision that you and everyone makes. There would be a split in
	the universe at that particular point, and it doesn't have to do with with human beings.
	This could happen even for an electron. In other words, if an electron has a
	possibility of going in one direction or another, then it chooses one path in one universe, and it chooses
	the other path in a separate universe.
	That's the basis of what's known as parallel universe theory.
	That suggests an absolute, unlimited number of universes, right?
	Absolutely, exactly.
	For every possible alternative, there is a separate universe.
	And all of these universes are happening in different spaces.
	The space is technically called a superspace, where all these universes are happening.
	So, there can be an unlimited number of them because they're not crowding each other.
	Now, the thing is, is that how does this apply to time travel?
	Well, if you, and this was actually studied by a physicist at Oxford University, David Deutsch, looking at how quantum theory would affect these paradoxes.
	Suppose that you went back into the past.
	As soon as you arrive in the past, there would be a split in the universe.
	there would be two universes. You, for example, would find yourself emerging in a universe
	in which you could actually see yourself going into the machine, but there would be another
	universe in which you don't see that. Okay, so there are actually two separate universes. Now,
	the new universe, in other words, this gets around the so-called notion of the grandfather paradox,
	where you go back and kill your grandfather, or the way that I like to think of it, the more
	milder form is you go back and prevent your grandfather from getting married, for example.
	You know, and if he doesn't get married, then he doesn't have your, you know, your...
	Father or mother, and they don't have you, so you know, you shouldn't be around.
	But if you go back into the past, what the parallel universe theory says is that as soon as you arrive in the past, there would be a split.
	There would be a universe in which you, in fact, would be in a universe where you would have to see your grandfather, and you could prevent his marriage.
	You would now find yourself in a very strange universe in which you were never born, but you were there.
	But the other universe You would not have you emerging and affecting your grandfather.
	And that universe does give rise to you.
	The notion here is that you can go back into the past and change the past, but the past you change is not the past you came from.
	The past you change is not the past you came from.
	So from that moment of change forward, everything would be different.
	That's right.
	But there would be another universe that led to the normal path that you came from, okay?
	In other words, that's the reason why there wouldn't be a paradox, because there would be a universe in which you didn't affect your grandfather, and he did get married.
	In fact, you know, he doesn't even encounter you, and things go normally.
	And that's the universe that you came from.
	But as soon as you entered the time machine and came back into the past,
	you ended up in a different universe.
	And that's the universe that you can affect.
	So you, you can go back into the past and change things, but the things you're changing are in a new universe.
	Um, there's this, uh, butterfly effect thing.
	Now, if you create a change, you're in another universe in which events unfold in possibly a completely different way.
	Now, maybe the change that you make has some large effect on the unfolding of events in this new universe, or maybe it does not.
	Is that correct?
	That's right.
	I mean, it's more likely that it will.
	I mean, if you emerge and you change things, it's likely that the ripple effect is going to have very, very significant changes in that new universe.
	Really?
	Yes.
	Because, you know, every little thing that you do can lead to a change that can be extremely dramatic.
	My God, we're already at another break point.
	The time is just flying by.
	All right, Professor, hold tight.
	Professor Ronald Mallet is my guest, and if you want to look at a model of a time machine, we've got it on coasttocoastam.com right now.
	I suggest you take a very good look as you listen to what the professor is saying, because he might have it.
	From Manila in the Philippines, I'm Art Bell.
	I'm not sure I believe in time, either, as a straight Unbendable, unchangeable line that simply goes from the past to the present that we chug along in toward the future.
	I don't believe it's that single line.
	I really do think the professor is right, Professor Ronald Mallet, that it can be modified from a straight line to essentially a circle that would allow travel Easy travel from the future into the past, zipping past the present, again into the future, as you wish to do.
	Traveling probably in either direction.
	And I wonder what would control the direction of the travel.
	That in itself is interesting.
	There's a million interesting questions here.
	Professor Ronald Mallett, my guest.
	Time travel is a subject.
	We'll be right back.
	Once again, Professor Ronald Mallet.
	Professor, if you could travel into the past, could you... Well, here's a question from a listener.
	Josie in Toledo, Ohio says, Art, if you could go back in time and change something, and then end up in a different universe, then doesn't that defeat the purpose of going back in time, trying to change something in the first place?
	Well, I would answer that as no, because you're in a different universe then, where Things unfold in a very different way.
	And now, how that would relate, for example, to your father.
	Let's say you went back in time, Professor, and you did something that prevented his death.
	Could you stay then, in that timeline, in that universe, and continue... I don't know, wait a minute, let me think about this.
	And continue to be with your father through what would be then his normal extended lifetime?
	Yes, but just being that, it would be a weird sort of thing because in a sense... You would be older.
	Right, you would be, exactly, you would be older and you would actually have a younger version of yourself in that universe.
	You would have sacrificed yourself in your old universe because you would essentially no longer be a participant there and that would be the sacrifice that you would have to make.
	In other words, I would now be in a universe in which my father would continue to live It would be strange because he would be a younger man than myself and he would live normally and the version of me, the younger version of me in that universe would live out a different life.
	I might act as an older uncle for him or something like that, you know, but a godfather or something.
	But the thing is, is that it would be, I would be able to see how his life would have evolved If things had been changed, but from our point of view, yes, but from our point of view, you would disappear.
	That's right.
	You would be gone forever from the time stream that you had been in.
	And you would just, that would be it.
	People would say, well, you know, he's gone.
	So, but once again, so you, you in a sense you know, for example, if I, We're able to prevent the assassination of Martin Luther King.
	I could do it in another universe, and that would, but I would have sacrificed myself in my original universe.
	I've got it.
	Alright.
	I once had a guest, an interesting young guy, who was using a laser Uh, and found that he could take things like, uh, a little nut or a bolt, um, and cause them to, uh, temporarily disappear and then reappear.
	He was using, uh, I can't recall exactly what it was, a laser.
	He actually got in trouble for stealing some, uh, very large transformers, and so he was using magnetics and, and a laser, you know, which is, is light in some manner, and I can't, can't recall exactly what it was.
	He's one of those that is now gone.
	Now, I'm not saying that he's traveled in time, but perhaps he has.
	And is it possible, in your view, Professor, that there are some people, aside from yourself, that have stumbled into exactly what you're talking about here, and have simply gone to another time?
	No.
	The thing is that you have to remember that there's a number of things that are involved here.
	Number one is the fact that I'm not exactly sure what this person did.
	Laser light is just like light, but it's only much more focused, it's much more intense, and it can be It has properties that ordinary light from a light bulb
	doesn't share.
	But one of the things that it can't do is just simply make things disappear,
	at least not so far as I know in the normal laws of physics.
	It can be used to push things around, and it can be used to create gravitational fields.
	But one of the other things you have to realize, and this is one of those things that people sometimes ask,
	are there time travelers among us?
	The obvious question is, if time travel is to ever be possible, then where are the time travelers?
	Exactly, that's a very famous question, in fact, one that was asked by Stephen Hawking.
	The thing that you have to realize is with real time travel, it requires a mechanism Then, if you turn, for example, the sort of system that I was talking about, the circulating light beam, let's suppose I turned it on today, and I left it on for, let's say, ten years, then, continuously, then someone could send information back from ten years from now, back five years, all the way back to the time the machine was turned on, but they can't go back earlier than that particular point.
	So, for example, and this makes sense, if you think of your radio, you don't get something from your radio before you turn it on, okay?
	You can't have a physical effect occurring before its cause is there.
	In other words, there will not be time travelers until time travel is invented.
	Exactly.
	So that's the answer to that question.
	The answer to that question is that the reason why we have not been inundated with time travelers is that the first time machine has not, in fact, been invented.
	To the best of our knowledge.
	To the best of our knowledge, exactly.
	The thing is that it's possible that it has been developed in other worlds.
	That's distinctly a possibility.
	I believe that life is out there in other civilizations.
	That's distinct from the notion that they may have visited us.
	But, Professor, if you had a time machine, if you went back to prior to your father's death, You, just kind of like early in your career, you couldn't really talk about it, could you?
	Well, you mean if I went back to, oh yes, you mean, well, that's an interesting point.
	What would I do?
	I mean, once I was there, what issues?
	I mean, that brings up a whole host of other things that, you know, how much would I want to become involved in that world?
	Once I got there, that's something that I would have to decide, you know, after really careful consideration, because there are these ethical questions about... Could you make a choice, Professor?
	Could you stay in the past and have your life there?
	And also, could you choose to return?
	Could you return?
	No.
	Once you are in that new universe, you cannot return to the old universe.
	You are in that universe forever.
	And if you use the machine again, You would end up in a new universe.
	So, in a sense, you would be parallel universe hopping as well as time traveling.
	Now, I have to say that, remember, this notion of parallel universes is just one possible alternative that's based in the physics of quantum mechanics.
	There are other possibilities that one has to consider as far as time travel is concerned, because, you know, you have to realize that All that we really have for ourselves is the present moment, the moment that we're in.
	The future is not something that has happened.
	So, suppose that you received some sort of information from somewhere today.
	Let's say that the information said, you know, Art, I don't think it's going to be a good idea for you to take a drive tomorrow.
	That's, you know, all the information you got, okay?
	Now, you would have to ask yourself, wait a minute, now is this a message from someone, you know, Who knows something that I don't know about, you know, what's going to happen to my car?
	In other words, someone who just, you know, knows that someone tampered with it?
	Or is this information coming from the future in which someone knows that something's going to happen to me if I take that drive?
	Or is someone, you know, playing a joke on me?
	So there's a fundamental uncertainty that you have in that information that you've received.
	Where is it coming from?
	Now, you have to make a decision and act on it or not act on it.
	That's always going to be confronting people when time travel occurs.
	When they get the information, they're going to have to decide, is this information from my universe or parallel universe?
	You're telling me it's a one-way ticket.
	That's right.
	Okay, a one-way ticket.
	So that in itself would create a very, very difficult decision, Professor.
	Let's say that you built the machine that you have pictured here, that you actually managed to build it.
	How much hesitation would you have in going in and taking a shot?
	None.
	None?
	taking a shot? None. None? None. Excuse me. That's quite all right.
	None.
	No, the thing is that I wouldn't have no hesitation at all because of the thing.
	It's, you know, there's this excitement about knowing more, of exploring the unknown.
	And, you know, I am one of these people, I'm a Star Trek fan, and this notion of boldly going where no one has gone before would be irresistible.
	I mean, I would want to know what it would be like to time travel, so I would have no hesitation to do it.
	Why, since it's a one-shot deal, since it is a one-shot deal, of course you would take back with you The knowledge to build another machine, I suppose, if you had to, if the technology was available at whatever time you chose.
	A million questions.
	What would you choose?
	If you had the machine, you could go to the future, you could go to the past, but it's a one-way ticket, basically.
	Where would you go?
	Have you made that decision?
	No, I mean, I haven't.
	I mean, for me, right at this particular point, it's just to see that my equations would in fact lead to these effects,
	and to actually do it.
	It's the notion of the sweetness of the technology, of knowing that we have understood some really
	fundamental new aspect about the physical world.
	That's the thing that would motivate me to do it.
	You know, this question of what to do with it is actually a very important ethical consideration,
	because the notion of time travel leads to the notion of time travel abuses.
	Any new technology has that associated with it, and the question is that if you have this new technology, don't you have to worry about how it might be abused?
	No doubt.
	What abuses do you imagine?
	Well, I mean, Imagine what time travel would be like in the hands of terrorists.
	You see what I'm getting at?
	Yes, yes, yes.
	Okay.
	So the thing is, is that one has to be careful about that sort of thing.
	And so I believe that once the technology is developed, like any technology, it has to be regulated.
	That doesn't mean that the technology should be prevented, because also there's the positive aspect of the technology.
	In other words, time travel could be used as an early warning device to tell us of of disasters, preventing, you know, catastrophes. So the
	thing is, is that like any other technology, it's going to require regulation. And there will have to be
	sort of a time travel commission that would oversee the ethics of using the machine, the
	considerations that would be evolved, and monitoring possible abuses. One of my favorite movies
	is called Time Cop. And the the title of the movie is is uh...
	held up in the justice of the car to I thought the movie was actually quite good with Claude Van Damme, but the notion was that they had a time regulation commission that essentially monitored abuses in time travel, and that is something that will eventually have to happen.
	Well, but according to what I, if I've been listening correctly, not much that you would go back and do would affect the present universe's timeline, would it?
	Well, see, that's what I was getting at.
	In other words, if you think of time travel and think of the notion that all you have is the present moment, That means you really can have the possibility of affecting the future.
	Now, it sounds weird in the sense that, you know, what happened to that future out there?
	Did it just simply disappear?
	Perhaps.
	In other words, there may not be a parallel universe.
	You may, in fact, since all you're dealing with is here and now, you may in fact be changing and creating a whole new future.
	And there is no other future except for the future that you have evolved from, from this particular point.
	Not a parallel one, but a new one.
	So it all depends on whether this parallel universe theory is correct or not.
	Exactly.
	And that's something that we won't know until we begin time traveling.
	Well, there wouldn't be any danger in time travel as long as we've got infinite parallel universes.
	If time travel would only allow us to tamper with what we're living in now, then all of those ethical questions would be gigantic.
	Exactly.
	And the thing that you have to realize is that, see, one of the aspects of Einstein's theory is that we think we are all in sync and in the same, marching along at the same Uh, time stream because we're all moving at about the same speed and we all find ourselves in about the gravitational field that's about the same strength.
	But as soon as we start moving very, very quickly or find ourselves in gravitational fields that are very different, our time stream separates from everyone else.
	So we are conscious of what a future would have been like.
	But once we arrive at a particular point in the past, That past becomes our present, and for everyone else, there's no future that has happened yet.
	We are the only one who knew about a potential future that could have happened.
	And so, we could change.
	There's a possibility that we really could change.
	Professor, how much money would you need to construct what you have pictured for us here?
	How much money would that take?
	I'm not sure.
	The thing is that what we're doing is in stages.
	I'm a theoretical physicist, by the way, and I develop the basic equations that I'm working with.
	A collaborator who's an experimental physicist.
	He's an expert in lasers.
	And in physics, there is this very, very important difference between theoretical and experimental physics.
	Yes, of course.
	Right.
	In other words, Einstein created equals MC squared, but he did not build the atomic bomb based on his equation.
	That was done by other physicists and experimenters, largely.
	And the same thing is the case here.
	I've developed the basic equations, but I have an experimental collaborator who's an expert in lasers who's working with me to put my notion into a design.
	So you're telling me he has actually begun experimental work based on your equations?
	No.
	The thing is that he's begun design.
	What is holding us up is funding.
	That's the other thing that the public doesn't realize is that, you know, this is... Well, that's why I asked about money.
	Exactly.
	We don't know how much.
	To get started, what we need to actually... One of the things we have to do is to show that the circulating light is going to cause a twisting of space.
	If we don't see that, then there's no point in going on.
	That's going to cost at least A quarter of a million dollars, to be specific.
	That's not much.
	A quarter of a million dollars.
	If you can show that, then the rest of it is probably going to work?
	Is that fair?
	Exactly.
	That's precisely it.
	Because the space-twisting is what drives the time-twisting, but it requires more energy.
	But first you have to see the space-twisting.
	That's the precursor that would tell you that it's the basic.
	Professor, how much energy do you imagine this would take?
	Because when I look at this, it doesn't look like it would take the kind of energy that most theoretical physicists talk about, and I've interviewed a number of them on the subject of time travel, and a lot of them say, yes, we think it's possible, but it would take more energy than we're really capable of producing right now on Earth, period.
	Well, the thing is, is that this would require, the space twisting part requires, doesn't require as much energy.
	The equations show that two things have to happen.
	You need intensity, and you also have to talk about how small the region of space is that you're dealing with.
	The smaller the region of space, the less energy you need.
	That's why in what we're doing, we're talking about information and subatomic particles.
	If you talk about a sufficiently small region of space, then not as much energy is going to be needed.
	If you talk about trying to do it with human beings, an enormous amount of energy is going to be needed.
	All right.
	Let's back up and talk about something as small as a nut or a bolt or something small.
	Right.
	Probably then we would need, you know, The estimate.
	Trillions of watts of energy now.
	You might say that's power.
	You might say, wait a minute, that's huge.
	But it turns out that there are lasers that have energies that are like the energy of the sun.
	Professor, hold on.
	We're at another break point.
	We'll be right back.
	I'm Art Bell.
	My guest is Professor Ron Mallett.
	He is a theoretical physicist, and he thinks he may well be on to what it would take to build a time machine.
	He's actually got another physicist who is prepared to begin work on the machine itself.
	This really is something, and if you've been listening carefully, It really, really sounds possible to me.
	This is very, very exciting stuff.
	All my life, I guess I've been looking towards something like this.
	So many questions.
	Chad, for example, in Fairland, Indiana, I guess it is, says there would be ethical considerations, even if parallel universes exist.
	And they probably do.
	You could still totally screw up somebody else's universe, and that would not be ethical.
	We'll ask about that in a moment.
	All right, Professor, welcome back.
	That's a really good question.
	Assuming that there are an infinite number of universes, even assuming that, such a machine, if you can build it, would in fact, even if it didn't screw up our current universe, it might screw up somebody else's universe, and that in itself would be an ethical dilemma of some sort, wouldn't it?
	Absolutely.
	I mean, that's actually a very good point, and once again, that's something that has to be considered.
	Someone may realize that they're doing that and could do it for reasons that, you know, are not good for the new universe.
	Exactly.
	So once again, that's a reason for the necessity of regulation, because yes, you could go back and you could say that, well, I don't like this universe that I'm in, and I'm going to go into another universe and I'm going to manipulate their universe so that it's more to my desire.
	And yes, that's That would be frightening, and that was something that would have to be considered.
	All right.
	That said, let's for a second imagine that you've done the initial testing, and you find that everything you think is true is true, and you finally end up building the machine.
	And I'm not sure how you're going to answer this, but I'm wondering, even given the possibility that you would screw up somebody else's Universe, there would be that point you would come to where you would either push the button or not.
	And, you know, I've wondered this about so many areas of science, Professor.
	It seems as though ethical dilemmas or not, well, go back to when, for example, the atomic bomb was first, when we lit off the first one.
	Right.
	There was a substantial portion of the world that you walk in, the physics world, That thought there might be a chain reaction and we might actually burn up our atmosphere.
	It might have a chain reaction and destroy the world.
	That's right.
	There was that consideration, in fact.
	There was, but we pushed the button.
	Right.
	And I think that it's part of our human nature that we have to know.
	We have to know.
	I mean, even if you think of it in terms of the Wright Brothers, The plane could have crashed.
	They could have been killed.
	You know, I mean, the thing is, is that we have to know.
	And they would have only lost and been gambling with their own personal lives.
	Well, that's true.
	That's true.
	I mean, the thing is, is that at least from my standpoint, The notion of trying to send a subatomic particle back or a piece of information back within my laboratory, I wouldn't feel as though I was going to be annihilating or destroying someone else's world.
	But that is a possibility.
	But I don't think so.
	I mean, I think that considering what it is that I'm attempting to do within the region of what I'm looking at, ultimately, if we're talking about the future situation, but I think within the limited laboratory situation that I'm looking at, That would not happen.
	The question is that eventually it could happen, but not in the situation that I'm looking at.
	I don't think that seeing whether or not a subatomic particle is going to live longer because it's going into a time loop is going to cause a catastrophic change to someone else's universe.
	But, you know, the thing is that anything that we do has a consequence for our own future.
	And you were talking a little bit before about the butterfly effect, that some little effect that we do leads to a chain of events that can alter things in a very, very dramatic way.
	So even that little notion of sending a bit of information or a subatomic particle will alter things in some small way that will change the future.
	But as I said, If we did that, then I think we would say, maybe I shouldn't go out of my house today because if I go out, you know, I may cause an accident.
	And if I cause an accident, then, you know, that could really lead to, you know, disastrous consequences for me and others.
	So maybe I should just stay here and not leave my house.
	Well, okay, but that applies to scientific work where the only thing at risk was perhaps an individual or even a few individuals.
	Science has marched forward since the age of element 92 to the point where the button we push might not have just an effect on that one person, but on the entire world.
	Today's buttons and future buttons are sort of different than the old buttons.
	Well, you're quite right.
	The thing is that, at least insofar as I can see from my equations, there doesn't seem to be a theoretical possibility that there would be something like the equivalent of a chain reaction that would lead to the destruction even of a parallel universe, let alone of our universe.
	At least in that limited sense of what I can see, it doesn't seem as though there would be that possibility.
	There was that possibility because there was the notion of fusion reaction that would be ignited by a fission reaction that could have led to You know, but most of the scientists didn't believe that that was so.
	There were a small group that did, but even in my case, there isn't that equivalent here.
	That is to say that it doesn't seem in the equations to say that, well, there is this possibility that if I do this, it's going to, you know, alter all of reality as we know it.
	Okay, well you've written a book, Professor, simply called Time Travel.
	Now, has it been out long enough for your colleagues or other theoretical physicists to have reviewed it?
	And if so, what kind of feedback have you received?
	Right, well, my book, thank you for mentioning my book, Time Traveler.
	In fact, Time Traveler is the name of the book and the subtitle of it is
	The Scientist's Personal Mission to Make Time Travel a Reality. So that gives you
	an idea of what the content of the book is. But Time Traveler is just coming out.
	I mean, this week is when it's official release date, and it will be available this week in all bookstores, and it can be ordered on Amazon.com.
	So, it's just getting out there.
	All right.
	Even at that, though, Professor, I'm sure that at some earlier stage, before you went to publication, you must have handed this to a few other colleagues somewhere or another and said, read this and tell me what you think.
	Yes, and if you would like, I can actually tell you some of their comments.
	Please, yes, please.
	OK, I mean, the thing is that one of the things I want to point out about the book is that this book, Time Traveler, is not your standard popular science book.
	It's actually an autobiography.
	Which talks about my journey, and then it also discusses the different possibilities of time travel.
	Not just my theory, but the possibilities of time travel using wormholes and cosmic strings, as well as the theory of black holes and everything.
	But the book is basically a story, an autobiography, with the science in it.
	So, a lot of the comments actually have to do with that.
	So, you have to realize that one of the things I was trying to do, for example, Christine Larson, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Central Connecticut State University, said that she thought that the book was a powerful text that paints the scientist as first and foremost a human being.
	in a way that few other scientific autobiographies have mentioned.
	The science enthusiasts who come to this work will be fascinated
	by Mallet's groundbreaking research into time travel and will come away
	with an unexpected understanding of his struggles against prejudice,
	both societal and scientific.
	So, you know, you hadn't mentioned it, but I am African American
	and that has actually been part of the journey as well.
	I mean, this story is that broad.
	Has that been difficult for you?
	I mean, in your field, is the fact that you're African-American, has that been a difficult path to follow?
	I thought we were past all that, or are we not?
	I would like to say so, but unfortunately, one of the Major physicists in my field, as I was growing up as a young scientist, who was a Nobel Prize winner.
	His name is William Shockley, very well known.
	He actually was the co-inventor of the transistor, and he believed specifically that African Americans were inherently inferior intellectually.
	This is a Nobel Prize winner.
	In our time.
	So you get my drift.
	This is a physicist.
	OK, so and imagine my hearing this.
	I mean, I remembered hearing him.
	He was being interviewed at Yale.
	This was back in the late 60s, early 70s.
	And this is the sort of thing that he was spouting.
	This is a Nobel Prize winner.
	And, you know, this whole notion of the bell curve that's been out recently, you know, which, you know, now young African Americans are, you know, faced with this notion that, well, why should I go into the sciences?
	I mean, you know, in other words, they're discouraged.
	Just the whole notion that they may be intrinsically incapable of achieving great things in the sciences.
	This is the sort of thing that's put out, and it's put out by people like Shockley.
	So that's the sort of thing that I had to overcome in a general way.
	Now, I have to say that in a very personal level, I was very, very lucky.
	My thesis advisor was a wonderful person at Penn State.
	My first employer at United Technologies, he was a wonderful man.
	And so there have been people in my life who have aided me and who have helped me.
	But the general atmosphere, for example, just to give you a notion, when I got my PhD in physics in 1973, there were 20,000 PhD physicists in the United States.
	1973, there were 20,000 PhD physicists in the United States.
	Of those 20,000, only 79 were African American.
	I was one of the 79.
	My God.
	So, the whole propagated notion actually has brought about the reality of, I guess, telling the African-American community that they can't do it.
	And so it must have, to some degree, worked.
	In other words, it's kept people out of the field.
	Exactly.
	You know, why bother?
	And one of the things that has been important for me with this book, Time Traveler, has been to try to And I've been very, very fortunate to be able to give lectures across the country, and African-American groups have invited me, as well as the larger community, is to eradicate that notion, to encourage young people that African-Americans, that they are capable of achieving great things in sciences, and there is no limit.
	Gee, maybe you'd rather go into the future where this crap has ended.
	The thing that I'm hoping, that I feel like I am doing, is by changing the present, I'm hoping to be able to alter one of the possible futures.
	And it's sometimes very, very discouraging.
	It's not easy.
	I mean, the heroes that are always put up within the African American community, and they are heroes, are athletes, you know, and entertainers, and that's fine.
	But, you know, our society is a highly technological society.
	And I believe that it should be contributed to by everyone.
	Women, minorities, I mean, everyone needs to contribute to this increasingly sophisticated civilization.
	And I think that the only thing that inhibits people is the barriers that they put up to themselves.
	But they sometimes allow society to tell them what they can't do.
	And that's one of the things that I want to fight.
	And that's one of the things that I try to point out in my book, too.
	If you actually got this machine built, and you had a working model, Professor, would you turn it over to the world, or would you, given the opportunity, walk in and disappear?
	I would actually turn it over to the world.
	I'm one of these people who actually believe that We can be responsible for ourselves if we're given, you know, the chance.
	I would not just simply disappear.
	I want to be someone who makes a difference in our society, and I believe that time travel could allow us to control our destiny in a way that previously we had not been able to.
	But even if some of these ethical barriers that we sort of discussed Well, for example, you said, what if it fell into the hands of a terrorist?
	Well, what if it did, and what if that terrorist somehow went back and undid America, so that our future, or our timeline changed, and suddenly there is no America?
	I mean, that's a very, very serious consideration.
	Oh, that's a very serious consideration, but the thing is, is that blocking time travel research A free society is not going to block time travel research in a totalitarian society.
	Scientific knowledge is not just the province of free societies and by our not allowing ourselves to be aware of and have some control of the situation could lead to the disastrous consequences anyway.
	Yeah, that's true.
	So there'd be a time travel gap and the other guys, the bad guys, would get it and there would go America anyway.
	So we would have to, there'd be a time travel race once any part of what you theorize is correct was proven, there would be a race, wouldn't there?
	That's exactly so.
	That's exactly so.
	Have you had any Well, of course, it's early because the book's not out, and here you are on national radio.
	Yeah, the book is out.
	Just coming out.
	My ultimate point was, have you had any interest, for example, from DARPA, from any government agencies?
	And if you haven't, I bet you will.
	I have already.
	Oh, you have?
	Oh yeah.
	I actually mention that in the book.
	Yes, and it's been an uncomfortable situation because I don't mind having, in fact, I need the support of the government, but there's different branches of the government.
	For instance, the National Science Foundation and NASA, and that's fine.
	But I really will not, I don't want to have this used as a military, you know, tool.
	And so I have avoided accepted funding that could come from DARPA, and I have actually been approached with that.
	And the thing is, is that I have avoided that.
	I don't.
	And I have also avoided funding that has come from other sources that aren't military, in which they want to put CAP top secret.
	In other words, I have been approached by people who have said, we'll give you as much funds as you need.
	I know that they had the funds and they were serious.
	But they said, we want you now no longer to talk about your research.
	And I said, no, I will not do that.
	I believe in open research, and I believe in sharing my results with society.
	In fact, this book Time Traveler is that point, to share with the society the fruits of what not only I have done, but other physicists.
	How hard did you have to think about that offer before you said no?
	A fraction of a second, not even that, but the thing is is that it's hard, because the thing is is that, you know, one would think... It's money.
	It's money, but I believe that we will, and in fact we have, the University of Connecticut has a foundation.
	The money wouldn't come directly to me, it goes to this foundation, and an account has in fact been opened by the type of person that I want.
	This individual is He's an investor, but he is also a composer, and he has said, there's no strings, here's some money, and I just want to know how the work is going.
	All right.
	Hold tight, Professor.
	We will be right back.
	This is Coast to Coast AM.
	If alternative radio gets any better than this, I don't know how.
	My guest is Professor Ron Mallett.
	The subject is time travel, and his book is Time Traveler.
	Now, it's just about to Hit Sands, as it were, and Amazon.com and all the rest of the normal places will, if they don't now have it, shortly will.
	It's certainly something you're going to want to read.
	It's a book about man, I guess the journey, and maybe the machine.
	He's got some very serious theories on how time travel actually might be achieved.
	And if you don't have questions after listening to all of this, well, you haven't been listening.
	Back in a moment with Professor Mallet.
	The one thing that I think we didn't cover as well as we might have was the
	was power required.
	Professor, you were saying that it's a great deal of power.
	However, you got to kind of a however.
	Some current lasers and so forth are capable of the kind of power you're talking about?
	That's right.
	I mean, we have lasers that are used for thermonuclear fusion.
	This is the type of energy that's generated by the sun.
	And there are lasers that are capable of reaching powers that can cause that type of fusion process.
	So the point is that technology is potentially capable of doing it.
	But what we have to do, as I said, is start.
	We don't need that kind of power at this particular level to do the type of experiment that we're doing to show the space twisting effect.
	But ultimately, if we have to go to higher powers, and I also believe that one of the other aspects that, you know, is just as you are doing the experiment, you find out that there are side effects, ways that you might be able to boost the effect.
	In other words, one of the things that you do when you're doing experiments is find out things that unexpectedly might help you to create the conditions that might even be simpler.
	But, once again, we need the basic funding so that we can actually just get started on the basic experiment.
	Well, there's always pulsing.
	You can get tremendous power with pulsing, and if you were dealing with something as small as information, you just might have the power you need.
	Professor, you know, when I mentioned DARPA, that was just a shot in the dark on my part.
	I thought, you know, DARPA would be the kind of people that would be interested in something like that, and you're telling me they were.
	Yes, as a matter of fact, they were.
	Yeah, I mean, you have to realize that this is research now that's been going on for a few years, and the work that I've published is published in the standard refereed scientific journals, Physics Letters, Foundations of Physics.
	So, the information is there, and people were aware in the physics community and the general community of what my research was doing.
	So I had been approached by people.
	Right. And the thing is, is that, as I said, I just realized that, no, I mean, I didn't realize.
	I mean, I just did not want and do not want.
	If military application comes, it doesn't, it's not going to come directly from me.
	And as I said also, I have gotten funding, or not funding, but people have approached me, non-government agencies.
	Of course, well imagine the military applications, it's better not to really.
	What are some practical, let's assume that the machine is built, time travel becomes possible, what would be some of the more positive practical applications of time travel?
	Then we'll go to the phones, we're all lined up here with calls.
	Okay, well, I won't be able to go into a lot of detail.
	I mention much more detail in my book, Time Traveler, but I actually did a provisional patent on a possibility, because as such, you can't patent a time machine, but you can patent a time machine with an application that's associated with it.
	And what I suggested was an early warning system.
	And the notion that I had was that if you wanted to know whether or not, and I used a specific example of a Mars mission, if you wanted to find out the success of a Mars mission, that you would, for example, come to me and I would turn on the device and give you an encrypted transmitter.
	And in the device, the machine itself would have a transceiver associated, which would also be encrypted.
	But, so it would only respond to a very specific signal from you.
	Now, the machine's turned on, and let's say it takes you two years to do the project, and suppose that you find out that it's, you know, successful or not.
	You send a signal to the machine that's there in the future, two years from now.
	It transmits the signal back to today and tells you the consequences of that.
	Then, that would save you Manpower, material, you know, to know now.
	And one of the things that had motivated me about that notion was the tragic Columbia disaster.
	I mean, just think how wonderful it would have been to have known that that disaster was going to occur and then to have not have it occur.
	And do the O-Ring research and, yeah.
	I can imagine then that that would be extended and there would be big money involved.
	For example, let's say I was a multi-billionaire and I was contemplating launching some giant business venture.
	There would be direct application there as well.
	Absolutely, absolutely.
	And I'm glad you pointed that out because one of the things that I said that I'm hoping to attract is the non-government sector of the population to be interested.
	And I had mentioned that we actually have gotten an initial investment to our project.
	from a man who is both an investor and a composer.
	I know he doesn't mind mentioning him because he's mentioned in the book, but his father
	is a very famous composer, was a music arranger for Henry Mancini.
	He has said all that he's interested in is he's excited about the possibility, and he
	just wants to be a part of it.
	And that's the sort of funding that I want to accept.
	And as I said, that funding does not come to me.
	That's another important thing to mention is the fact that it goes to a foundation that dispenses the money as we need it for our research.
	So this is not something that I can use to go to Alcapoca or something like that.
	All right.
	I have absolutely dominated your time, so let me turn it over to the callers.
	There are many, many of them.
	Chris in Illinois, you're on the air with Professor Mallett.
	Yes.
	My question, you mentioned the black hole and how the gravity, you know, for time travel.
	Well, it stems back to a show they had a week and a half ago where they had an astronomer and an astrobiologist on there, I believe it was.
	And he said that many black holes were created all the time in the atmosphere by something colliding, and that scientists were trying to create many black holes, but they disintegrated very quickly.
	If they could create one and be able to sustain it, would that be a plausible idea to do that and make it rotate around?
	Very interesting question.
	Right.
	The problem is that the notion of being able to create these, I mean that is very, if you could theoretically create them and could control them and you could get down to that region, and you pointed out, it's a very important point, that they would have to also be rotating black holes in order to do that.
	Then you might be able to do that.
	The question is, is that would you be able to create them?
	We don't know that they're being actually created in the upper atmosphere.
	We don't, we haven't seen any evidence of them being created anywhere at this point.
	But the thing is, is that if one could create them, and one could harness them, then one might be able to use them for that particular purpose.
	But you have to realize that these black holes, these so-called mini black holes that you're talking about, they were predicted by Stephen Hawking, they radiate.
	So, they're not stable.
	They actually evaporate.
	So, you would have to find a way of actually stabilizing them.
	And that, according to Hawking's theory, by their very nature, they don't want to be stable.
	They actually want to disintegrate.
	So, that would be wrong.
	Professor, this is a good question for you.
	They are on the verge, I think, perhaps at CERN, of creating a black hole.
	How much, if any, danger is there in the creation of a black hole?
	There's a lot of danger.
	For one thing, if you create a black hole, a black hole wants to pull things into it.
	Now, the type of black hole they're talking about presumably would be one of these Hawking microscopic black holes, which radiate energy out.
	And once you create them, the question is, is that what they would, would they explode and what type of, you know, radiation you would get out of them?
	That's something that we really don't know at all.
	And that's not even something that's predicted accurately by Hawking's theory.
	So it's not clear exactly what would happen if one were able to create it in a laboratory situation.
	But there is a fair amount of danger.
	There is a fair amount of danger.
	A lot of controversy about that.
	It's interesting to hear.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Professor Mallett.
	Bob, I think, in San Fran.
	Yes, Professor.
	I was wondering, you're worried about the funding for it.
	Is there any way or possibility that you might be able to ask Warren Buffett?
	Well, the thing is, is that for me, It would be one of these situations that, uh, if he wanted to contact me, I mean, I, I, you know, uh, the notion of, of actually, you know, sending my contract out to, uh, uh, Bill Gates.
	I mean, I mean, you know that these people probably get these things from people all of the time.
	I mean, I want people to realize that, you know, what I'm doing is very, very serious.
	And I have a webpage that's set up that they can contact me, and I would give them the information, the details.
	What is that website, please?
	Okay, it's www.physics.uconn.edu.
	It's short for University of Connecticut.
	It's www.physics.uconn.edu.
	So it's www.physics.uconn.edu.
	And that web page, I've had it designed by a professional web designer who's done a beautiful
	job of it.
	And it talks about not only my work in detail.
	It talks about the funding and also it talks about my book as well.
	Thank you.
	And incidentally, as I said once again, we can't go into a lot of the details here, but I think that if you look at the book, you'll find more information as well.
	But please visit my webpage, and this is what I would hope that investors would do, because it would tell them about the scientific papers, the referee papers, and everything, and give them the information that they would need.
	All right.
	Going a little north of me to South Korea, Alan, you're on with Professor Mallet.
	Hello, Professor, and hello, Mr. Bell.
	Hello.
	Yeah, hi.
	I've got a question for you.
	Sure.
	Actually, I got your book, and I used time travel to get it myself.
	What I did, I saw in the papers that you were going to write a book, and then I went to a website called Future Me, and I sent an email to myself and to the future, and I said, check Amazon.com to see if this book is available, and lo and behold, it is, and I have it on my hand right now, and I've been reading it all day long.
	Oh, so that brings up a question I got.
	You're talking about, before in the book, you were talking about the De Sitter universe?
	Yes, that's right.
	Okay, De Sitter space affects super space.
	So, if super space affects De Sitter, that was, like in your book, you talked about manifest covariance.
	Right.
	Could that explain, like, dark matter?
	Or like 90%?
	In other words, There's other universes affecting this universe and we're feeling the gravitational effects of them?
	Well, now, you bring up a good point because the, let me explain, you know, to the audience.
	What the gentleman is talking about, the so-called De Sitter universe, is the representation of our expanding universe.
	We know that our universe is expanding.
	I mean, this is, we see the evidence of this.
	And one of the solutions of Einstein's equations that was discovered by a physicist by the name of De Sitter, of actually gives us a representation of an expanding
	universe it would look like uh...
	a balloon in which if you painted dot on the balloon and those white dots
	represented galaxies you blow up the balloon
	the dots would expand away from each other on the balloon in the decider
	solution of Einstein's equations represents that expanding universe
	there's a term in there that is called the cosmological constant
	This is a very controversial term, even for Einstein, but this term represents the possibility of dark energy, so you are right on that the notion some people have in our time is that this, a portion of what makes up the Universe may be the so-called
	dark energy, not dark matter, but dark energy.
	So yes, the Desider Universe, or at least the so-called cosmological term associated
	with that, could represent a portion of what we call dark energy in our Universe.
	Okay, Colin?
	Yes, sir, one more question, and I'll take the answer out of the air.
	If you pumped enough energy into your time machine, did you make it into a black hole
	I'll take it off the air, thank you.
	Yeah, you're right that if you put too much energy in too small a region, then it's a possibility that you would be creating a black hole.
	Here, you would actually have to regulate that.
	And according to the equations, in any case, you should be able to control the amount of energy so that you wouldn't create a black hole.
	But any time you have a concentrated amount of energy in any particular region of space, there's always that possibility.
	In fact, that's the sort of thing that was briefly mentioned about CERN's experiment.
	It's kind of like a collider, in a sense, isn't it?
	Well, in the sense of what I'm doing, you have these four intersecting beams, but they're intersecting in a way that they create an effective circulating beam of light.
	If you want, you could think of the intersecting beams as sort of colliding with each other, but they don't collide.
	They sort of just intersect with each other, and you're interested in the region in which they're not intersecting, in that little area.
	Between the intersecting light beams.
	And that's the area where space should be being twisted and time being twisted.
	Wild Card Line in Florida.
	Philip, you're on the air with Professor Mallett.
	Good morning.
	I just have two brief questions.
	One is, is there any more likelihood of either the past or the future being more accessible Hypothetically, because the past has already happened, might it be a little easier to go to the past than the future as a theory?
	And then one other brief question after that.
	I'll tell you what, before you answer either one of them, we're going to have to take a break.
	So Professor and caller, hold tight right there.
	I think in the past, it's always been thought that it would be easier to go to the future than the past, but we'll find out more of that after the break.
	You know what?
	We do have the time.
	Professor, let's tackle that one.
	Right.
	Well, Art, I mean, the thing is that the statement you made is correct.
	I mean, in other words, it actually is easier to go into the future.
	And in fact, you know, we were talking about the special theory of relativity, where you can use a fast rocket.
	That's something that we already have been able to do in the laboratory.
	We actually have been able to move into the future.
	Short amounts, but we've been able to do it.
	Going into the past has been something much more difficult.
	But once again, you might say that the type of thing that you need to do is to fix the past.
	And what I mean by fix the past is that by creating a machine that today, for example, it actually isolates a piece of the past so that you can come back to it.
	And that's not something that's easy to do, but you can use Einstein's General Theory of Relativity and the fact that gravitational fields can be manipulated to manipulate time to create that region that would allow you to go back into the past.
	So it's easier to go into the future than it is to go into the past.
	That's what I thought.
	Collar, pose your second question.
	We'll get that after the break.
	Collar?
	Yes.
	One quick question.
	Is it in your heart, do you feel that you will be able to No, go ahead.
	Go ahead and answer it.
	It's a fast answer.
	Yeah, I do believe I'll be able to see sending information in subatomic particles, but not human beings in my lifetime.
	There you go.
	Yeah, I...
	Okay.
	No, go ahead.
	Go ahead and answer it.
	It's a fast answer.
	Yeah, I do believe I'll be able to see sending information in subatomic particles, but not
	human beings in my lifetime.
	But I do believe it will happen in the 21st century with humans.
	Wow.
	Hold it right there.
	Professor Ron Mallett is my guest from Manila in the Philippines.
	I'm Art Bell.
	Even if what the professor is talking about, the time travel of information is achieved in his lifetime, the repercussions of that would be incalculable.
	Absolutely could not be calculated.
	Think about it a little bit.
	You could find out ahead of time whether a project you had in mind would succeed, become a mega corporation, or flop.
	You could save your money.
	And that's only the beginning of the application.
	So if only that much came true in the professor's lifetime, he'd own the world, wouldn't he?
	Professor Ron Mallett is my guest.
	It's your turn with a professor and we'll be right back.
	Once again, Professor Ron Mallett.
	Professor, actually, I had heard of your work some years ago, and I tried to get you on the air some years ago, and I guess it was premature, and you weren't ready for it.
	I wonder if you recall the overture.
	Yes, I do, as a matter of fact, and I appreciated it.
	It's just that I was in the midst of writing, doing the research actually on the second
	half of the work, because the first half had been involved with showing the space twisting,
	and I was still trying to demonstrate the time twisting, which I had now succeeded,
	and it's been published.
	And also I was working on this book, which I had wanted to have a chance to reach the
	public.
	One thing I'd like to mention, I'm kind of proud of, is that Publishers Weekly mentions that the book is for the general public and aspiring young scientists.
	So I do hope that the general public does become interested in reading it.
	How young is this scientist?
	How young are you now?
	How young am I now?
	I'm 61 years old.
	You're 61?
	Oh, you're going to have me beat by a year or so.
	How about that?
	So, when you say you're going to achieve, perhaps, information transfer in time, in your lifetime, that's going to be in the next couple of decades, eh?
	You got it.
	All right.
	Back to the lines we go.
	Tony on the wildcard line in Cleveland, Ohio.
	You're on the air with Professor Mallett.
	Hey, Professor Mallett.
	I'll make this quick.
	Actually, I was just wondering, with your theory of traveling to alternate universes in time, how would you deal with the fact that when you get there, that there's two of you, and you know, you couldn't use your social security number, you wouldn't have an ID, wouldn't be able to get a job, you know, how would you deal with that?
	I mean, because there can't be two duplicate social security numbers and everything, you know what I'm saying?
	A practical and interesting question, actually.
	Well, as a matter of fact, as I said, I don't think it's something that someone would engage in lightly, and you would have to have given it a lot of forethought, and you would have to decide that you were going to be making a lot of sacrifices by doing it.
	But for me, as I said, if I were to do it, it would be for not something light.
	It would be for the reason that I mentioned.
	Just try to prevent an assassination of someone like, you know, Martin Luther King or to see my father.
	And I would be willing to sacrifice and take the chance that in the new universe I would have to see how I would have to fend for myself.
	But yes, someone who is doing that, it is not something that you would engage in routinely because yes, your entire life would be altered and you would have to live with those consequences.
	So I couldn't agree with you more.
	Professor, would there theoretically be a way to calibrate it carefully enough so that you could pick the time?
	Oh, yes.
	I mean, you could actually pick the time that you're going back, because you're moving in space as well as moving in time.
	And so you can actually calibrate, as I said, if you turn the device on for 10 years, you could decide whether you want to come back 2 years, 5 years, 8 years, up to 10 years.
	So, yes, that can be done.
	Got it.
	East of the Rockies, Joan in Washington, D.C.
	You're on the air with the professor.
	Hello.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Just want to say one thing before I ask the question.
	My deceased husband was an engineer at Raytheon, and I found a card among his papers that said he was A little card that said that he was present at the Apollo 11 moon landing.
	Just wanted to let you know.
	And let the audience know.
	Wow.
	Yeah, that's a wow.
	Go ahead.
	Now my question is, everybody has been saying that time has been just going whizzing by lately.
	One year has been going and there's another year.
	We just had Christmas, now it's here again.
	And do you think that time could have been manipulated or can be manipulated, the atomic clocks, to make time go faster?
	I'll let you answer, Professor, but I have my own answer for that.
	Right.
	The thing is that what you're talking about is psychological time, and it's known that You know, just the pace of our life.
	I mean, you remember when, and all of us have had this effect, when you were a child, a day seems, you know, like forever.
	And as an adult, you know, it seems like a minute.
	I mean, the thing is, is that it's the amount of activity.
	It's also physiological.
	I mean, when I say psychological, it's also physiological.
	But, you know, it has to do with what is going on and the amount of what's happening to us in our life.
	That psychological time is not the same thing as the time of physics that I'm
	talking about, which is not a time that is affected by our psychological behavior.
	It's a time that governs us, and it's something that passes for all of us, independent of
	our psychological feelings.
	Well, the way I always heard it explained, Professor, that I really liked is, you know
	when you're three years old, one year represents a third of your life.
	Now, you're 61, I'm 60, so obviously it represents, you know, a day is just...
	For us.
	But as you mentioned, when you're three years old, a day is just simply forever.
	So, I think that answers why we all feel like time is speeding up as we get older.
	In fact, in a good sense, it is.
	Let's go to Charles, I think, in Marietta, Georgia.
	You're on the air.
	Hey, Art, I'm a big fan.
	I just started listening.
	But anyway, my question is for the professor.
	I'm just curious, what possible benefit could there be of, um, of, uh, of, you know, not, of sharing it with the world if, you know, I mean, in this age of, maybe you addressed this earlier, but I don't, I miss the, uh, I don't understand why, you know, what's the benefit of sharing this with the world, uh, if obviously you're saying, you know, information will be able to be sent in this lifetime.
	So what happens if, I mean, You know, Arabs get a hold of this, or, you know, I mean, I just don't understand the benefit.
	You say Homeland Security or whatever came to you and said, we'll give you as much money as you want, and you say, no, I want to publish my results to the rest of the world.
	I don't understand what benefit is there for that.
	Well, yes, I did, in fact, address this, because the fact that just because we don't share information doesn't mean that the information isn't going to get out there anyway.
	Uh, the thing is, is that what I feel that is necessary is for, I mean, I'm, you know, in a free society and I believe, to give you a simple example, I mean, uh, you very well aware that, The airplane that was discovered by the Wrights in 1903 can be used for terrorist activities.
	So does that mean that when the Wrights had invented it, they should have just simply said, no, we're not going to share this with the public.
	All we're going to do is to just keep this, you know, a secret with a small group so that eventually terrorists won't be able to use this.
	You see what I'm getting at?
	In other words, you can't do that.
	and besides that someone else somewhere
	will do it invented anyway the point is that by wearing a free society we should
	share the information and i'd don't say that it shouldn't be regulated in fact i want to
	emphasize again very strongly
	that i feel any new technology
	should be regulated in more important the technology the more important it is to have it regulated itself
	i don't mean that they should not be
	have regulation of the control but what i'm saying is that i do not
	believe that uh...
	cloak of secret should be put over it as though it's not going to get out there in
	the world anyway because we're afraid
	that someone might be with it and abuse it Now, as with all things, let's just be first.
	West of the Rockies, Vic in Carlsbad, California, you're on the air.
	Hi Art, great show.
	Professor Mallet, when the time traveler goes back into the past, and in essence creates a new universe, a parallel universe, Wouldn't that violate the law of conservation of mass?
	You're doubling the mass?
	No.
	No, you have to realize that when we're talking about creating this new universe, it's actually...
	Mathematical thing.
	It's called superspace.
	You're not actually using up the energy of one universe to create the other universe.
	These are actually self-contained parallel separate universes that don't use up energy and matter from each other.
	So there's not a principle of conservation of energy that's involved in this because you're not using the energy of the one universe to create the universe, the other universe.
	But if you have two universes, don't you have double the mass?
	You have double, but not in the same universe.
	You see what I'm getting at?
	In other words, what you're saying is so if you were creating this universe in the other universe, but you're not.
	These are two separate universes, and they have their own energy conservation associated with each other, and they're not overlapping with each other.
	If they were in the same universe, then when you created the new universe, you would in
	fact be creating additional energy, but you're not.
	In theory, could you go back to the age of dinosaurs, or how far back in time could you
	go?
	You can only go back to the time that the machine was turned on.
	In other words, if it's turned on today, and you leave it on for 100 years, you could come
	back 50 years, 25, all the way back up to this point.
	but you could not go earlier than that.
	Which also, Vic, answers why there are no time travelers here now, and there will not be until it is invented.
	Right.
	Thank you very much.
	Okay?
	All right.
	Thank you, Vic, and take care.
	Oh boy, so many people want to talk to you.
	I guess we'll make it the fourth wildcard line, and Dave in Alabama.
	Hello there, this is Dave, and Dr. Mallett, if we take an amoeba strip, a one-sided strip of paper, and draw a line down the center, it meets up with itself because there's only one side.
	Now if we wanted to travel to a point on the opposite side, so to speak, we have the option of traveling down the line or simply punching through the paper, punching a hole.
	My question Is it possible that the configuration of the twist that you're going to try to impart to space could be manipulated in such a way to provide a punch-through point or a sweet spot, if you will?
	And I'll listen off air.
	Yeah, that's possible if you actually set up the configuration of lasers in a way that could create that.
	It's a possibility that you could create that kind of a twist.
	All right, Lawrence, Billings, Montana.
	You're on the air with Professor Mallett.
	Outstanding show, Art.
	I'm honored to meet you online.
	And, Professor, something strange happened to me the other night, and I was hoping you could explain it to me.
	My nephew and I were driving in my Lumina near my residence.
	We passed 9th Street West.
	The clock said 9.06, and it was a very, very heavy fog.
	It was very unusually heavy fog.
	And at that point in time, we Look up at the street sign, it said 25th Street West.
	And the clock still said 9.06.
	As if we went through some kind of temporal time shift?
	Actually, actually, that's a really interesting question.
	Professor, is it possible that through some natural quirk, some natural process that we don't understand, forces come together that do occasionally allow either peaks into other times or little time slips that occur for reasons that we just, we don't know?
	Right.
	That's a possibility.
	I mean, the thing is, is that I'm not sure whether this particular circumstance was that, but I mean, I, but the thing is, is that, yes, because remember that I said that this is a gravitational phenomena.
	And so if the configuration of matter, you know, happened somehow, that would actually cause a warping of space time in a particular region.
	And in fact, This whole notion that people have of the possibility of wormholes in space is just an example of that.
	So, yes, it's possible that one might have energy and matter configurations that occur as a natural consequence of nature that might produce that type of distortion.
	Yes, it's possible.
	Exactly.
	First time caller on the line, Darren, I think South Carolina, you're on the air with Professor Mallett.
	Yes, sir.
	How you doing, Mr. Mallett?
	How you doing, Mr. Bell?
	I'm very excited to be talking to you guys.
	Thank you.
	Are you there?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Go ahead.
	Okay.
	I have a question about going forward in time or backwards in time.
	I would like to make a statement here.
	A friend of mine in Arizona was actually in the process of building a time machine, and he's now gone, disappeared.
	And I have his papers.
	And his papers lead me to believe I've been trying to decipher him for seven years now.
	And me and a partner of mine, we're working on building our own and we're fully funded by ourselves.
	And his papers seem to show that at different points in time, we're at different frequencies.
	So it doesn't have an effect.
	So we don't have an effect as a paradox per se.
	And that we can't affect the past But we can affect the future, but only by knowledge of what we bring back with us.
	And also, using lasers with non-reflectors with a magnetic field around it by adjusting the spin of the magnets, You create the vortex through which nuclear forces imposed on the photons of the light by the magnetic motion is what determines whether it's a positive force or negative force.
	Right spin or left spin determines whether you go forward or backwards in time.
	Okay, it sounds like you're reading from the papers.
	Is that correct?
	I am.
	Okay.
	I've taken from the papers and also on that same knowledge right there that, let's see, Okay, well listen, we're so short on time, we're not going to be able to proceed with this.
	But again, it kind of brings up another point.
	That is, Professor, that we cannot have absolute knowledge that somebody else has not come up with a practical means to move in time.
	It may have been done, and we would not have knowledge of it.
	Correct?
	Well, yeah.
	The thing is, is that once again, I think it's important to realize that If they did, it would have to be something that... One of the reasons why I take what I'm doing seriously, as well as my colleagues, is based on Einstein's theory of relativity.
	And I think that if it has been done, it would have to have been done on that basis.
	And, of course, it's possible that it could have been done somewhere, but the question is that, as a scientist, I would like to see the evidence of it having happened.
	Of course.
	First time caller, wildcard line rather, Marlon in Ohio.
	You're on the air with Professor Mallet.
	Not a lot of time.
	Hi.
	Yeah, fantastic.
	I wanted to ask this one question.
	If we're all moving through time, we're moving together at the same speed of time.
	So we're moving relative together.
	But if you have a time machine, aren't you actually moving sideways in time since you're leaving this universe and going to another universe?
	And if there's going to be benefit in time travel, don't you need a collaborator from another universe to conspire with?
	Oh.
	Okay.
	No.
	Well, okay, let's take your first question, okay?
	The thing is, is that as far as you're actually disconnecting your time stream from everyone else.
	It's not that you're going sideways so much as you're disconnecting by either going faster or being in a different gravitational field, okay?
	That's the answer to your first.
	The second is that, in a sense, you might say it would be an unintended collaboration.
	And it's a good point, because if you're going to this other universe, a time machine in that universe would have to have been turned on, so that you are able to be there in that machine.
	So absolutely, in a sense, you would have to have had an unintended collaborator in the universe you're going to, because if there's no machine there, you're not going to end up in that universe.
	Professor, we're out of time.
	What a wonderful program this has been.
	Guaranteed we'll do it again.
	Your book is Time Traveler.
	It's just hitting the shelves, although we talked to somebody who's already got it.
	So, anybody who was fascinated with tonight's program should immediately go out and buy your book, Time Traveler.
	Professor, I just cannot thank you enough for finally being here with me tonight.
	Well, thank you very much, Art.
	I enjoyed it thoroughly.
	What a pleasure it's been.
	Good night, my friend.
	Good night to you.
	And ladies and gentlemen, that's it.
	It's been a wonderful three-day weekend for me.
	Thank you very much, George, for allowing me to fill in for you on Friday night.
	Everybody else, have a wonderful week ahead, and I will see you next weekend.
	So, from the Philippine Islands, Manila, the big city in the Philippines, I'm Art Bell.

▲