[FredZarguna]

The reply is to Pontiac. You are included, because he was replying to you. Please observe the "to" fields.

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.

[Pox]

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.

Please cite your reference for such an assertion. I've read of such observations that "seemed" to be superluminal, but none that have been verified as likely factual, and the few (or perhaps couple) of such claims I've read of were never backed up with a theory that could explain such an aberrant (IMO) observation. I was under the impression that the "Lorentz invariance" was only applicable to local observations, so I may be mistaken, but if that is the case, it should not be applicable to long range observations that have several possible variables to explain an observational exception. However, if the postulation that objects permanently out of our observation range due to their distance + superluminal velocity then it is not a reasonable theory as far as practical observations go, at this point in our history, and are not possible for verification (obviously). However, such a belief also is apparently ludicrous from the standpoint that even if an object is traveling faster than light, that does not necessarily make it an unobservable object, regardless of the expansion rate of the universe, unless you're trying to say that the universe is expanding greater than the speed of light. It may take 15+ billion years to reach our neck of the woods, but if that object reflects or emits photons, those photons will eventually make their way here (most likely, depending upon several mundane factors revolving around what is between us).The proceeding is not factually based but extrapolation of my understanding of physics in general, so I may be mistaken on a few points.

Yes, it does. This statement is 100% factually incorrect.

My bad. I should have been more specific in stating that I believe that the mathematics showing this to be the case are faulty regardless of the fact that I do not have the mathematics at my fingertips to prove it wrong. I understand Special Relativity and multiple levels of math, but (and I hate to admit this) I simply have the "gut" feeling that something about this "theory" is fundamentally incorrect. I can't explain it better than that, so I suppose my belief can be dismissed out of hand.

I suppose it's the same feeling I get when physicists claim that neutrinos have no mass.