The reason we cannot move faster than lightspeed is extraordinarily simple and the debate needs to stop. Without the constraint of a cosmic speed limit we would be infinite beings or we would not exist at all. General Relativity is a physical understanding of our finite perception of our universe, which in reality is part of a chain of singularities with observable finite properties "culminating" in eternity. What is observed from beyond as a singularity with finite properties such as mass, spin, charge, and observable boundary, is observed from within as the physics of an infinite universe. This is because every existence, while appearing to be finite, is actually just a finite experience of an infinite singularity constrained by the limited spees of light. Simple.
Anybody else have a theory that explains asymmetry, the Big Bang, singularities, and wave-particle duality without sacrificing the validity of general relativity or quantum mechanics as we know it? No? Just me? Okay then.
Any theory of everything must incorporate infinity as a basic concept. As long as you view it as an impassable barrier you will remain stumped. Think of the universe as context existing in an infinity of self-perpetuating infinite systems constrained by relative observation and go from there.
The universe will expand forever because general relativity governs our finite observation of infinity. The expansion of spacetime accelerates relative to an externally observed property of radius.
r=(2GM/c^2)^∞
Relative infinity described in terms of Schwarzchild's radius. Simple.
6*∞=6,12,18,24...∞
6^∞=6,36,216,1296...∞
r=(2GM/c^2)*∞ therefore represents a static universe wherein all mass/energy is distributed equally relative to infinity, which is essentially meaningless to us.
r=(2GM/c^2)^∞ represents a static universe that expands exponentially relative to initially observed properties.
So you see, the accelerating expansion of spacetime can be explained quite simply as a necessary physical property of our universe.
“We just assume the principle of indifference, which is the default assumption when you don’t have any data or leanings either way.” This is a fatal flaw whenever applied, because it's ridiculous. You arbitrarily assign a 50% probability to some fantasy, because you don't know anything. The probability we live in a computer simulation approaches zero.
Finite perception of infinity. Nothing is actually finite, it just appears to be to us. That is why matter cannot be created or destroyed.
Some of this is certainly information of which many of you are aware, I tried to be concise and I promise it is all relevant to my central point. 105 years ago, Albert Einstein published his theory of General Relativity, one of the most beautiful artifacts in the history of human science...
forums.livescience.com
I am so tired. I just wish somebody would understand what I am saying instead of demonstrating quite clearly that they don't and then getting mad at me. Our problem is the way we grapple with concepts of infinity. But like zero (the opposite of infinity) we will need to bring it into the conceptual fold if we want to advance. The answer has always been right in front of us.