Re bn & zaphod,... I THINK I know what you mean. Maybe like if you emigrated and were told that the word "garaga" was a polite form of greeting. However, in practice it turns out that the word "garaga" is a particularly offensive insult. But it would only take either a black eye or one broken bone for you to make the connection.
However, it`s not as simple as that. Talking of communication, international misunderstandings must occur on more than a daily basis and so on an interplanetary scale I should think the first words spoken should address this, although such an address itself might be seen as an insult or even threat.
I was told, by a neighbour of German origin, that whilst working in a German Hotel that she met a guest with impeccable manners (and this in pre-WWII) who, approx three days into his stay, referred to her with a word that, in his part of the country, meant Flower.
In return the lady slapped his face and ran off crying. Apparently, the same word meant, in her part of the realm, Prostitute.
Inter-species translation isn`t likely to be as easy as that.

I agree.  Interspecies communication would at the very least be difficult, and at worst impossible.

How do you think we'd go communicating with a cuttlefish who seem to use colour to communicate, and lets face it, I don't know too many people who can change colour rapidly enough (or at all for that matter) to communicate effectively with such a species.

Not all communication is audible.  Some is visual, some is by touch, others by smell and there's probably a billion other ways to communicate in the universe which we don't have the faintest idea about.

interspecies communication I have more trouble understanding people from Elizabeth (A place were english is a second Language) then I do with my dogs.

That's because your dogs are 50000 times more intelligent that anyone from lizbef

try TEACHING kids from lizbef LOL... perhaps once we solve the issue of current sources of fuel and find one that finally breaks the current rule of E=MC2 by being of light mass and propelling us past the speed of light then (according to my dopey understanding of the law) we would indeed be travelling backward in time.  the problem then becomes getting home again.

Let me see if I have this straight.

By your theory, traveling faster than light moves you backwards through time.

Therefore, that argument suggests that moving slower than light moves you forwards in time.

If this is relative as to speed, ie: the faster you go above SOL the faster you back in time, this implies that the slower you go, the faster
forwards in time you go.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but does this mean that stationary objects are moving faster through time than objects that move?

This is indeed what Relativity implies, however it also states there is no absolute frame of reference, so "stationary to what" would be a fair counter! However, this was tested with Apollo 8 (IIRC) and synchronised atomic clocks demonstrated that the astronauts slowed down by microseconds over their voyage.
Time travel through breaking SOL is highly speculative, it being one of those cases like before the primordial atom or within a singularity which sees the physical laws as we understand them break down. One fictional example I can think of was Monarch in Four to Doomsday, who believed that when he'd break SOL he'd travel back to the origin of the universe and meet God, who would be himself! Great ideas in that script, lousy realisation.

Here's a better example; Uranus was discovered by William Herschel (who named it George), however it was drawn off kilter by a further planet. This was predicted and found, but Neptune itself deviated from the expected orbit, leading to the discovery of Pluto (and assumption of its mass to be orders of magnitude greater than it is; it's smaller than our moon but highly reflective).

Anyway, this seemed to be happening at the other end of our solar system, with Mercury orbiting oddly. This led to the search for an inter-Mercury planet, popularly called Vulcan. However, Relativity solved the orbital eccentricity without recourse to finding another body; when Mercury approaches the sun (perihelion) it is also traveling through time. Mercury receives an extra kick through space-time by proximity to the greatest mass in the system.

And Neptune's orbit? Turns out the astronomers just got that wrong; if there's a tenth planet out there (ninth planet now Pluto's been demoted) it's wa-ay distant!

Is there scientific reason to expect we could move back in time if we could travel faster than light. Perhaps there are speeds greater. I think scientists are searching for a hypothetical creature named a tachyon which apparently cannot travel slower than light. I don`t think they found it yet.

Tachyons (the search for tachyons) were big news in the '80s, however things have moved on and they are no longer expected to exist. Scientists today talk not about tachyon particles but the tachyon field or tachyon problem. That is causality is a taken in particle physics, and anything which seems to violate it can be termed "tachyon". The original get out clause was that tachyons were not causality violators because any backwards information would in effect be negative and thus equally forward and positive--or deterministic.