Well, here's to sum it all up, and end the debate whether we will ever do time travel:
If we did learn time travel in the future, we would have seen somebody that time-traveled from the future by now. So we will never, ever accomplish time travel. But we still have no proof that we won't invent teleportation someday. 
Teleportation is actually a very interesting concept in my opinion. The world around us has atoms EVERYWHERE, correct? Since us humans are made up of atoms, then if we were able to somehow replace the atoms where you intend to be with you, you would be there, and the atoms you switched for would be where you once were.
but you would obviously have to figure out a way to replace atoms. but if you could thats most likely the correct theory. me and my friend, had a long discussion about this when we were staying in New York for a week, we were in the same room. We came up with that. 
Wait a minute about Time Travel though. How do you think their would be futures of your people. and if you go to the future, you wouldnt be able to go back, BECAUSE then it would be going to the "past" of the future. unless you can go back to the present.. its complicated!
@Pencilmaster: That's just one theory though. Equally, the multiverse theory could state that everytime you go back in time, an alternate universe is created. Which is split in the timeline at the point you go back too, thus creating a whole new reality in which you are bound to. If you then travel back to the present (for you), things would have changed.
@Sausage: What's not to say that all time-travellers are sworn to an oath where they must not show themselves? And if some do, maybe there are "time police" that protect the natural flow of time by preventing these people from interrupting with history. Again, we can only speculate. But I do think time travel only belongs in science fiction.
@ICARAX: People have talked about this already to make teleportation. Essentially, you have a dematerialiser, that essentially kills you but saves all the data which is then sent to your target destination. And through a materialiser is reconstructed in your previous form down to the very nerve (if we get it spot on, theoretically all your memories would be intact). So, to achieve this, we'd have to achieve perfect cloning at a large scale (to be able to store all of the information of someone's body would be ridiculous and difficult to achieve).
@ICARAX: People have talked about this already to make teleportation. Essentially, you have a dematerialiser, that essentially kills you but saves all the data which is then sent to your target destination. And through a materialiser is reconstructed in your previous form down to the very nerve (if we get it spot on, theoretically all your memories would be intact). So, to achieve this, we'd have to achieve perfect cloning at a large scale (to be able to store all of the information of someone's body would be ridiculous and difficult to achieve).
yes, but as i said, swapping atoms for atoms, isnt killing you, right?
@Sausagefanclub: Well, if then they would even maybe come back and tell it to us in a year. But for NOT changing the time the past you must not see the futuristic you. Like the Time Turner Thing from Harry Potter 3.
... interesting theory there pencilmaster1999.
You can still call me pencilmaster, ICARAX
@ICARAX: People have talked about this already to make teleportation. Essentially, you have a dematerialiser, that essentially kills you but saves all the data which is then sent to your target destination. And through a materialiser is reconstructed in your previous form down to the very nerve (if we get it spot on, theoretically all your memories would be intact). So, to achieve this, we'd have to achieve perfect cloning at a large scale (to be able to store all of the information of someone's body would be ridiculous and difficult to achieve).yes, but as i said, swapping atoms for atoms, isnt killing you, right?
Technically, you aren't.
But basically you're killing yourself and then reconstructing yourself at another point. Take away the killing, and you'll have cloning.
Didn't einstein say that, if you go faster than the speed of light, you would be able to "time travel". I think that is just because you can SEE the past or future, but you can't walk around and touch everything, because your actual mass is still in the age you started in. (2011). So you can't lock up your cat, just before he would jump around on the highway, you can't show your ipad to ceasar. [SADFACE]. By the way, going faster than light is impossible, said einstein. Look at FPM, in the rectangular bonus level, with the four jumppads, wich you have to jump on, for the trophy. If you would go too fast, you would hear OUCH!, and you fall down dead. No spacemen, no dinosours, just dead.
Not quite, if we're still using Newtonian physics. With Einstein's theory of relativity, technically it's impossible to go faster than the speed of light. Ergo light is the fastest thing in the universe.
You don't quite achieve time-travel, but theoretically you slow down time. The faster you travel, the slower time gets.
@ICARAX: People have talked about this already to make teleportation. Essentially, you have a dematerialiser, that essentially kills you but saves all the data which is then sent to your target destination. And through a materialiser is reconstructed in your previous form down to the very nerve (if we get it spot on, theoretically all your memories would be intact). So, to achieve this, we'd have to achieve perfect cloning at a large scale (to be able to store all of the information of someone's body would be ridiculous and difficult to achieve).yes, but as i said, swapping atoms for atoms, isnt killing you, right?
Technically, you aren't.
But basically you're killing yourself and then reconstructing yourself at another point. Take away the killing, and you'll have cloning.
A clone is considered a "copy" of yourself. you arent killing yourself, nor are you cloning it, because replacing is not making another you. unless you are saying that you would have TWO of yourself. Here Are two examples of replacement.
1. Apple will replace Steve Jobs with someone else.
2. He replaced Tom's sharpened pencil with a broken tipped one.
________________________________________________________________
neither of those two definitions have cloning something involved, or killing.
@LifeInAnEgg: Life would continue normally to everyone else. But for people travelling faster, time would be slower.
@ICARAX:
A clone is considered a "copy" of yourself. you arent killing yourself, nor are you cloning it, because replacing is not making another you. unless you are saying that you would have TWO of yourself. Here Are two examples of replacement.
When we're talking about "human cloning" in it's most basic definition: "Human cloning is the creation of a genetically identical copy of a human". Which you are doing with this way of "teleportation".
@AJ32: There are multiple explanations for that. Either:
A) Something stops you from killing yourself, and doesn't affect anything.
B) You kill yourself, spawning an alternative timeline.
@WJUK: When you add the teleportation part, i believe you are wrong (at least with my theory) (sorry if im sounding extremely stuck to my thoughts, but)
Teleportation is the act of moving yourself somewhere else without having to walk or fly or do any large amount of movement to get there. you just get to a teleporter, and you go to wherever you move. Teleportation is an act of Transportation, just easier and faster.
Right?
You're pretty much right.
I would classify teleportation as a means of travelling faster than conventional means. Optimally, it would be the transmission of matter at the speed of light (or faster?).
Agreed that it would probably be around the speed of light.
Running the speed of light is IMPOSSIBLE. Absolutly Imp-ossible
Right! Impossible!
Here's an interesting link
Really amazing. I am really obsessed with these questions.
You must log in to post.
