[RightWhale]

The special theory describes how things will look, and looking means that we use light to make our measurements. This does not necessarily mean that things cannot move faster than the speed of light. In string theory there are tachyons. The math is consistent, but who said the universe obeys the axioms of math? There are a lot of things in math that have no immediate application to the world of matter. Even something cut and dry as mechanics does not a priori claim to predict how things will behave, but rather it is the other way around: we see how things behave and then adjust our mechanics to fit what we observe.

[JustDoItAlways]

Did you ever notice that Einstein's E=MC^2 is similar to Newton's F=MA

In Einstein's case, E is the energy (or Force) of the electro-magnetic spectrum (ie photons and light) and the acceleration is simply the speed of light (the speed of the electro-magnetic spectrum) squared.

Einstein's E deals exclusively with the energy of light and the electro-weak-magnetic force.

It seems to me that F=MA and E=MC^2 should be expanded on to fit into other forms of energy.

[King Prout]

difference between acceleration and moving.
IIRC, as a particle with mass accelerates approaching C, it's mass would approach infinity, making the energy requirement for continued acceleration also approach infinity.
"things" without mass would not have that problem, would they?
also, nothing I understand of the theory suggests that there cannot be things, particles, waves that simply move faster than C, just that they cannot accelerate from below C to or beyond C.
IIRC, tachyons supposedly just move faster than C, period.