First and foremost, “hypothetical” space “debris” is contrary depending upon what you consider “debris”. “Space” has a “typical” amount of matter in a given volume. That matter can not simply be “brushed” aside and ignored if you want to move other matter through space.
Travel frames of reference as pertaining to time are debatable outside of the sublumial construct according to widely accepted mathematical principles laid down by Einstein simply due to the fact that he did not believe any appreciable quantities of mass (such as a ship carrying a pilot) could travel faster than a photon given the energy requirements to propel such mass at such a velocity would exceed the mass of the universe itself (at least I think it was Einstein, I could be mistaken).
Traveling backwards in time is not feasible according to known laws of physics, quantum or otherwise. At this time, mind you. Prove to me that negative mass exists or can reasonably be observed, and I could consider such a possibility. In any case, traveling faster than light does not necessitate moving backwards through time. The mathematics at that point are very debatable.
In any case, I may be wasting my breath as you may actually not be replying to me.
The ability to bend space, “warp” does not actually have the ship travel any faster than it was already going. It might not be any more feasible than FTL of course because of the energy requirements, should we even conceive of how to do it.
...
In my stupid little theory of time travel, we would actually be going to the “past” in a different time line, or another part of the multi-verse. Because who ever said parallel universes are all on the same date?
IOW, you could go back and kill your all your ancestors and you wouldn’t go anywhere but the you in that universe’s future would never exist.
That matter can not simply be “brushed” aside and ignored if you want to move other matter through space.
You are correct on this point, and I was agreeing with you. You should have stopped right there. The rest of what you have to say is nonsense:
Travel frames of reference as pertaining to time are debatable outside of the sublumial construct
Wrong. There are objects in our universe beyond our horizon which have apparent velocities greater than light because of the expansion of the universe. We can no longer see them because the light from them can never reach us. Lorentz invariance applies to these objects.
accepted mathematical principles laid down by Einstein
They were not laid down by Einstein, but by Poincare, Lorentz, Fitzgerald, Minkowski, and others. Einstein's contribution was that he understood the physical significance of the mathematics.
simply due to the fact that he did not believe any appreciable quantities of mass (such as a ship carrying a pilot) could travel faster than a photon
He did not believe anything. He proved that it was not possible.
the energy requirements to propel such mass at such a velocity would exceed the mass of the universe itself (at least I think it was Einstein, I could be mistaken).
You are mistaken about what he proved. What he proved was that a particle with a finite rest mass -- even something as small as an electron -- would require an infinite amount of energy to reach the speed of light.
Traveling backwards in time is not feasible according to known laws of physics, quantum or otherwise.
This statement is probably true, but not proven. Neither in classical nor quantum physics has this been proven. There are a number of speculative theories that deny it, or argue in favor of it. There is no known observation that it is impossible, nor is it inconsistent with any existing theory. The laws of both classical and quantum mechanics can be run either forward or backward in time.
In any case, traveling faster than light does not necessitate moving backwards through time.
Yes, it does. This statement is 100% factually incorrect.
The mathematics at that point are very debatable.
No, they are not. The mathematics required to prove this requires nothing more than the two principles of Special Relativity and very basic (right triangle) arithmetic. I have taught this to junior/senior undergrads in Physics, and although I haven't used my PhD in Physics for almost 30 years, it has not changed, and I have not forgotten anything this basic.