Dear Peter,

As I see it, it would be a waste of time to  submmit a grant proposal to investigate the use of mobile phones in 1880. As far as I know, at that time there were no mobile phones.  Why "investigate " what could not be investigated because it did not yet exist? Of course, it would make sense to investigate why mobile phones, TV, and so forth, did not exist at 1880.

Researchers and researches look for the unknown and aim at answering, say, irritating questions or doubts, that is, questions whose answer leads us to advance konowledge and a better knowledge of the unknown. The question you mention does not look for the unknown nor does it raise, say, any "irritating" question or doubt. As you say, such a proposal  would be a completely senseless proposal.

Note that when we perform research, we should be first,  say, "students of logic" and only after that "sudents of nature" As this is not the case of the putative question you raise, this would be a good reason to reject it.

There is also something in your post that seems a bit contradictory, On the one hand you say. "just give me your reason for a rejection". On the other hand, you say "...  do not place a reasoning why." I wonder whether to give a reason is not, by definition,  placing a reasoning why. 

I hope I have got your question and that  this hepls.

Best regards,

Orlando

@all. It is not a proposal I would intend to submit, it is all hypothetical, but with a serious undertone. Two main reasons could be given  that the proposal should be rejected: first mobile phones did not exist or second time travel is impossible. Which of the two would be needed to reject the proposal.

 I agree with Stefan Gruner:

The application for Grant would have been rejected on formal bureaucratic grounds.

Leonid