Time travel...just proved it cant exist :(

got that sussed too, a really tall tower in the center of the usa, one in russia and a massive large elastic band....pull back to say the south pole and release.

I believe the scientist people call that a sling shot orbit

well, the only thing preventing the dematerialization way is the Uncertainty Principle of Heisenberg, which makes it nigh impossible to put back the particles in the exact way they used to be, hence making it impossible to teleport or time-travel. The beamers in star trek use a "Heisenberg Compensator", funnily enough, when asked as to how it works the answer is "very well", meaning they couldn't think of some sci-fi mumbojumbo to explain it. go figure : /

Correct, in theory (as far as we understand the concept right now) it would be possible to shift from teleportation to time travel.

We would need to figure out how to rematerialize on the opposite end and how to shift the axis from "space" onto "time" - but within the confines of how we have currently defined these planes it would be possible. And far more feasible than actually sending a physical object as a whole (like how we travel using cars, boats, planes etc).

Ofcourse that all relies on the fact that our knowledge of these concepts is complete and correct. Which it in best case scenario is far from true.

will do, i watched a documentry on cybernetic killing machines sent back in time, i am pretty sure i can adapt one to be very motivational

/me puts on his best arnie voice "Study with me if you want to live"

That isn't what I meant with out perception of time being flawed.

When we perceive time, we measure it in seconds, minutes etc. This measurement is done using machines.
Now if you go back in time to when we used mechanical clocks - the clockwork tended to be "flawed" so over the course of weeks or months a clock would start to deviate from the "accurate" passage of time. Either running fast or slow.

Modern clocks are far more accurate. But our perception of the universe (and of time) is still rather restricted.
So when we take our "earthbound" knowledge and apply it to space, we have no guarantee to rule out that the machines remain as accurate as we perceive them to be on earth when they are in space.
In other words, while the clock of an astronaut may run seconds or minutes short (depending on the trip) it is entirely possible that the actual time passed for the astronaut isn't infact less - its just his machine that started running "fast" due to the alternate environmental conditions...

In other words. While time remained the same, our perception of that time through the tools we apply changed.
This perception reveals itself through apparent dilation of time, rather than TRAVEL through time.
The astronaut who had his clock run fast/slow in comparison to earth did not "travel" through time as much as that time ran faster or slower atleast for his measuring device. Simply put, machine failure is a far more likely reason than that the astronaut actually spent "less time" in space than the people back on earth spent while he was in space.

To the point of what you are suggesting though. Even that is restricted to our perception of the universe.
Science relies largely on a handful of basic assumptions - but from time to time we learn something new which we use to alter our perception.
Before "gravity" was defined, gravity already existed. We just hadn't labeled it.
Before "atoms" and "molecules" were defined, they already existed. We just didn't know about it.
The same holds true for time. The nature of time doesn't change - but as we learn more and more about the universe around us, our perception of time MAY change.

Which is a completely different concept than the relativity theory you're talking about.
Which is also perception of passage of time, but not in the way I meant it. ;)