If the best you have is “at least theoretically possible” then that’s still only guesswork, not proof. You have no proof to support your claims.
It's certainly not the best. As I said it's "...at least'. There's more to it, but if you're dimply going to dismiss it without researching it for yourself, you'll never know.
And what loss is that? What am I losing?
A little knowledge. A little insight into the subject. At the very least it would give you a firm platform to refute my statements instead of attacking them from a position of ignorance of the subject.
Not without proof, it’s not.
I can't show you proof, but I can show you strong evidence. After that it would be up to you to read the papers, watch the lectures and follow the maths as far as you can.
You’re the one who claims to speak with certainty about how time travel works. When you do that, it’s your responsibility to provide firm proof supporting your claims. You have not done so, and you cannot. You don’t get to shift the burden of proof, that’s on you. All you have to offer is speculative talk that doesn’t prove anything. Nothing less than verified, real-world experiments is sufficient to prove the claims you’ve made. Until those happen, you don’t have a case.