Maybe that's where the problem lies, when we try to determine something based on what is "to the best of our knowledge". Our knowledge on a subject may be incomplete, but we still use that knowledge because it's the best knowledge we have on that subject. So when we say that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, that is our belief based on the accumulated knowledge that we have on that subject up to this point in time, but it still may be incomplete knowledge on the subject.
Why is it????
That the assertions about such things virtually always
SOUND HAUGHTILY, ARROGANTLY, . . . ETC. LIKE THAT PERSON'S PERCEPTIONS, BIASES, BELIEFS ETC. ARE THE TOTAL POSSIBLE REALITY on the topic for all time?
I would have THOUGHT that the history of the religion of science, even would have taught a LOT more humility than that about any era's "current level" of knowledge.
Sheesh.
There is something called phase velocity that travels faster than c. If you find a way to modulate phase over wave-fronts and de-modulate the information in some sort of a reciever, you and your family will be on a permanent vacation:)
Not exactly. It isn't, for example, anything like never having seen a car go faster than 100mph until one did. The speed of light is based on observation, experiments, and theories that are interlocked throughout physics and have proven to be predictive. No such support exists for arbitary numbers.
My point is that 2+2=4, always has, and always will. The speed of light may be similary immutable, and we may be stuck crawling across the universe at the same speed at which light and gravity propagate.
Not only do we lack observations of anything violating this limit, but we also lack a theory about what would be true if it was possible. The speed of light is delighful to speculate on, but it may be as immutable as the weight of the atoms in your body, or any number of more prosaic constants and limits.