4

Background

Without getting in too much details and going off-topic, I just want to say I personally find that the idea of time travel is ridiculous, at least in the current frame of physics and our understanding of time.

The case

While I was on Facebook I stumbled upon a page called Time Travel is 100% Real, they claim that

Actual, 3D Time Travel (As in Back to the Future). It is achieved and suppressed.

They go on about theories by a scientist called Dr. David Lewis Anderson and videos were he claims that he has built equipments and has done research that proves the possibility of time travel.

I looked into the articles and the videos and they provide no actual data or real accessible references, they (the page and some of the videos/articles/books) justify that by saying that those are

for anyone still living in the mainstream (media, textbooks etc) illusion of lies.

Question

Is there any evidence of time travel discovery?

Sklivvz
  • 78,578
  • 29
  • 321
  • 428
Adi
  • 145
  • 7
  • 15
    We all travel in time. Forward, at a constant speed ;-) – vartec Feb 06 '13 at 09:50
  • 5
    I don't see a notable claim at that facebook page. It all seems pretty vague. – RedGrittyBrick Feb 06 '13 at 09:58
  • 8
    @vartec - Forward at variable speed, remember the time dilation effects as you go faster! :) – rjzii Feb 06 '13 at 14:56
  • @RobZ: good point, although then this depends on who's the observer ;-) – vartec Feb 06 '13 at 14:58
  • 2
    Do you have to wear those red and blue glasses for it to work? – Ferruccio Feb 06 '13 at 15:30
  • 1
    Is a random facebook page considered "notable" claim on Sk.SE? – user5341 Feb 06 '13 at 19:31
  • @DVK, have you read the question? If you haven't, please do. This is a physicist specialized in spacetime physics and worked for USAF, he has studies and theories, he devoted an organization with laboratories and test centers to study time, he has written in magazines, appeared on TV & radio shows, AND he's the CEO of a foundation endorsed by UNESCO. I know that has nothing to do with the legitimacy of his claims, but coming from a person like that, it _is_ a bold and notable claim. – Adi Feb 06 '13 at 19:50
  • 18
    I think this is a duplicate of a question asked in 2015. – Andrew Grimm Feb 06 '13 at 20:33
  • [Welcome to Skeptics](http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/1505)! We want to focus our attention on doubtful claims that are widely held or are made by notable people. Please [provide some examples](http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/883) of places where this claim is being made (notably). – Sklivvz Feb 06 '13 at 20:33
  • @Sklivvz: That was my original position. One random person on FB isn't notable. But then I noticed the feed (which seems devoid of evidence, but full of motivational quotes taken out of context to promote that they are modern-day Galileos) had 13,000 likes. If those likes are for the concept in the group title, and not for the stream of unrelated jpegs, that sounds like notability to me. – Oddthinking Feb 06 '13 at 23:12
  • @Adnan: I tried to read the question. I didn't actually see any quotes from Dr Anderson. If you have some direct quotes from him, please cite them in the question. It would help with notability and clarity. – Oddthinking Feb 06 '13 at 23:14
  • @Oddthinking, you're quite right, I missed adding quotes and references to the actual claims. – Adi Feb 07 '13 at 03:06
  • @Adnan: It's not too late. "Closed" is not the same as "deleted". If we can fix this question up, we can get it reopened. – Oddthinking Feb 07 '13 at 03:14
  • @Oddthinking the number of people "liking" a page does not equate the number of people "holding a belief" in its subject. Surely, if there is a significant number of people actually believing that it is a fact that time travel exists and it is suppressed, then we should have many more example than a single facebook page. That's not a widely held belief. :-) – Sklivvz Feb 07 '13 at 08:43
  • 1
    @Sklivvz: I am happy to hold out for an edit that actually includes a more substantial claim than a one-liner; there's nothing worth refuting at the moment. However, 13K Likes shows that the idea at least has a substantial audience - we don't normally demand evidence that many people believe the notable claim. – Oddthinking Feb 07 '13 at 14:26
  • @vartec forward, yes, but not constant. – Morgoth Aug 24 '17 at 14:02
  • Actually, time travel was hidden from the public, and then it was achieved. – Acccumulation Apr 08 '19 at 21:45
  • If you are asking for citations or peer review for such a thing, I would have to ask if you have really thought this through. How do did you conclude that this technology would be unclassified? lol – Adam Ledger Jul 14 '19 at 14:56

1 Answers1

6

Viral marketing alert!

Googling around for this name shows that while there are several cross-referencing Websites there is no indication of external original material or reporting. There are claims that are prima facie bogus ("USAF credits him with discovering time-travel...") and claims that associate "Anderson" with highly-dubious existing claims ("the Philadelphia Experiment").

An easy claim to refute: there are no USPTO patents (much less time-travel-related ones) issued to "David Lewis Anderson."

Larry OBrien
  • 15,105
  • 2
  • 70
  • 97
  • 2
    I'm familiar with searching my name for patents in that interface, so I know it is very sensitive for exact matches. To find my granted patents, I need to do a search for the patents that include my middle name and again for the ones that don't. So I don't find this particular "absence of evidence = evidence of absence" argument very persuasive. – Oddthinking Feb 06 '13 at 23:17
  • I'd be remiss not to mention the Cheapass game [U.S. Patent No 1](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Patent_No._1) board-game here. The players are all inventors, rushing to be the first to perfect their time-machines, so they can go back to 1790, and be the first in line at the patent office to patent time-machines and thwart the others. – Oddthinking Feb 06 '13 at 23:20
  • 2
    @Oddthinking Yes, you're right about the PTO search sensitivity. If the question were re-opened perhaps I would just move the bulk of my answer to a comment. The question falls apart very quickly in the face of a minute or two of Googling -- there doesn't seem to be any interesting "grain of truth" to it. – Larry OBrien Feb 06 '13 at 23:25