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.


Is there any evidence of time travel discovery?

  • 15
    We all travel in time. Forward, at a constant speed ;-) – vartec Feb 6 '13 at 9:50
  • 5
    I don't see a notable claim at that facebook page. It all seems pretty vague. – RedGrittyBrick Feb 6 '13 at 9:58
  • 8
    @vartec - Forward at variable speed, remember the time dilation effects as you go faster! :) – rjzii Feb 6 '13 at 14:56
  • 2
    Do you have to wear those red and blue glasses for it to work? – Ferruccio Feb 6 '13 at 15:30
  • 18
    I think this is a duplicate of a question asked in 2015. – Andrew Grimm Feb 6 '13 at 20:33

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."

| improve this answer | |
  • 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 6 '13 at 23:17
  • I'd be remiss not to mention the Cheapass game 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 6 '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 6 '13 at 23:25

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .