Teleporting Versus Time Travel

[Sirjon]

I am wondering if Time Travel and Teleporting have the same or similar process. I know it well that if we deal with shortening the time to be in a certain place instantly, in split second - that is Teleporting. Now, if you past by, reversing the time and to be on that same place at much older years - that is, Time Travel. Now, i also assume that it is possible for a man to travel in the future, by means of a more practical way - 'hibernation', a kind of a long sleep, given that your body will not be affected by old age or other external biological factors. Then of course, if Einstein is correct, it is impossible to travel back in time if an object has a mass of its own, travelling at the speed of light. Just for curiosity, for the sake of great number of topics regarding time travel and teleporting,  I assume that we cannot travel back in time by simply speeding up, covering a large distance that will stop the clock and then , if we gain acceleration, reverse the hands of clock - that will end up to be a kind of a combination of teleporting + time travel. However, if we are contained in the what-so-called fabrics of Space-Time continuum, then MAYBE, someday, if our future technology could be able to discover a way to reverse the arrow of time (past>present>future),  then Time travel will be a dream of the past. I realized then, as personal hypothesis, time travel and teleporting have different process, that is, in teleporting, you need to speed up travel to shorten time to be able to cover a large distance (if you're in London, then split second, you're in new York), while time travel has to do with 'staying' in the same place (or occupying the same space) while changing going on in it's environment (let's say, like in a SF, contained in a Time travel capsule), reversing the arrow of time. What is your say regarding this?

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, Sirjon said:

I am wondering if Time Travel and Teleporting have the same or similar process.

As neither are (currently) possible, you can make up whatever science-fiction rules you want.

[Sirjon]

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

As neither are (currently) possible, you can make up whatever science-fiction rules you want.

In a way, i appreciate you inserted the word 'currently'. Although, it is more like a SF, I am not really speculating a petty theory of my own, i just want to know your own opinion (may not hurt the real science, I believe), conducting a lively discussion regarding those two topics.

 

[QuantumT]

The teleportation we see on Star Trek is "dissolving matter and recreating it". I can't see how that could ever be ethically responsible in any way. But then again, in 500 years we are old school. Maybe!

Travelling forward in time is easy peasy. All you need is a black hole.

Travelling backwards violates every rule that exists, because it tries to separate time and space (you are part of space). No can't do. Forget it.

[swansont]

38 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

Travelling forward in time is easy peasy. All you need is a black hole.

No black hole needed. I’m traveling forward in time right now, as are you.

[QuantumT]

Just now, swansont said:

No black hole needed. I’m traveling forward in time right now, as are you.

No, that's called living. But I suppose living is time travelling too. Sorta.

[Sirjon]

17 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

Travelling forward in time is easy peasy. All you need is a black hole.

Possibly. But as I comprehend it, time travel in the future is simply like, freezing space in a certain period of time and then flows back with the arrow of time. Since, there's no activity on the time traveler himself, he will then be amazed to discover that he's in 2050. 

Now, time travel in the past, in it's lower limit (I hope i use the right word), means to travel back in time before an event happens. Example, if you heard someone will going to assassinate your friend and it took you a minute to warn your friend before it actually happened, then that is considered to be a time travel (somehow). IMO, time is relative, as according to Einstein. As I also learned, all the activity going on in space (Astronomy) were already the 'past' as it took time for light to reach us. Now, a time traveler can conquer time if it can do an activity far more faster at it's contained occupied space. So, as I see it, it is one way for a time machine to possibly  exist. 

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, QuantumT said:

No, that's called living. But I suppose living is time travelling too. Sorta.

Sort of? Are you further in the future than you were yesterday? 

[swansont]

10 hours ago, QuantumT said:

No, that's called living. But I suppose living is time travelling too. Sorta.

Is it not traveling forward in time?