Suppose, for a second, we could travel faster than the speed

why does it matter?

yeah, there is a constraint, it's called the speed of light

The speed of light really refers to the speed of causality and is a maximum speed having to do with the space and time between two events which are causally connected. The only reason we call this speed "the speed of light" is because it happens to be the speed that light travels in a vacuum. Maxwell's equations reveal that light travels the same speed regardless of inertial reference frame.

-1/12 m/s

>>8556959
Speed of sound in a vacuum aka your shadow's informational quality

>>8556959
That question makes very little sense, honestly. The speed of light isn't exactly just some constraint you put on your physics, it's really one of the very fundamentals of those physics.

>>8556959
Either there is a maximum speed or there isn't. You can derive some contradictions about causality pretty easily if there isn't a maximum speed (you need some basic assumptions like homogeneity and isotropy of spacetime). See for example this paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3398

So it turns out for any reasonable laws of physics you do need a maximum speed. The fact that speed of light happens to match the maximum speed is an EXPERIMENTAL fact. (for example from the Michelson-Morley experiment) You don't need it to derive special relativity. This point is often lost in the way special relativity is taught because of the way Einstein originally set up his axioms.

See also the post by this guy >>8556988

>>8556959
Your stupidity

>>8556980

It seems to me, before the industrial revolution, that the fasest observable animal dictated how fast any creature could physically travel. With the aid of technology, we were able to surpass this limit on speed. Why is it so unfeasible that we would develop technology to go faster than this newest narural limit?

>>8558725
That comparision is not right. It's not the limit of how fast any creature can currently travel, but how ANY object or information can travel. The implications of that go much, much futher.

>>8556988
>Maxwell's equations reveal that light travels the same speed regardless of inertial reference frame.
Does gravity do this too?

>>8556959
Everything is a curve, so yes, there will be an upper limit. It won't be below C.

The only known way to accelerate something to speeds faster than causality is to cum with the force of 1000 suns. Both you and your ejaculate will be moving faster than c, but in opposite directions.

If current written down laws are correct, then we can't.

If we could travel faster than the speed of causality, then further expirments/observation would need to be made to determine a possible maximum speed, and a lot would have to be rewritten.

>>8558771
Yes. All massless particles and gravity waves travel at c. And OP you're fucking retarded. If there was a speed constant greater than c then that would be the maximum speed.

>>8556959
>Is there a physical constraint on speed beyond the speed of light?
None known to our current science. Anything above the speed of light is uncharted territory for us, we really don't know what would happen, if we even found a way to do it. If I recall, projecting relativistic equations beyond C implies that objects traveling faster than light would have imaginary mass, and would speed up, moving away from the speed of light, as they lost energy. Presumably, there is some faster-than-light speed at which energy would reach a minimum, equivalent to being at rest on our side of the light speed barrier. But no one has the slightest idea of how an object at tachyonic rest and one at baryonic rest would interact, if at all.

>>8558725
None of those are fundamental limits. It's just a limit imposed by the normal power-resistance relationship, you can go faster by increasing the power. The speed of light, for example, you can be arbitrarily close to the speed of light, but no matter how much thrust you have, you'll never actually reach it, just getting closer and closer with diminishing returns. The speed of sound is a better comparison, though it's still not exactly equivalent - it CAN be exceeded, but it's a "barrier" in the sense that resistance increases drastically as you approach it.

To be totally clear, it is possible to have a phase speed faster than the speed of light (or even group speed), but the front speed/energy propagation speed/speed that information is travelling cannot be greater than c. This is kind of hard to wrap your mind around, but has a lot of interesting implications.

>>8558720
>Your