[greenslime (OP)]

Yet we only know these things so far right? You are all pretty much saying that laws of physics can't be bent or broken. But there are so many things undiscovered yet that we don't even know about. So why does the impossible remain impossible when all avenues haven't been explored yet. We only deem it impossible from what we have learnt so far.

[Soul Surfer]

I agree and the sort of things that we do with technology woud seem like magic to an ancient greek but all of these are solidly within the laws of physics. 

A also agree that many people do not really understand how the laws of physics work and I have successfully done several things that a lot of people thought impossible (and got patents for them!) some of these are now commonplace (because patents run out after a few years).  However there are fundamental underlying rules like the conservation of energy and relativity that will always place limitations on things.

As for mysterious new forces that we do not yet know about.  If events involving them happened regularly in our universe under conditions that we can control we would be well aware of their effects by now.  There are no gaps where unexpected things happen regularly in our universe, altough some people will try to go to great lengths to prove otherwise.  There are probably many structures that we do not fully understand yet like the medium scale electromagnetic processes going on in stars and how a quark gluon plasma behaves and there are no doubt many amazing things we will be able to do with biological and nano technology but all these will fit within the known laws.

[lightarrow]

NO  the main point is that objects with mass just cannot travel AT the speed of light. they can only travel at just below the speed of light and whatever speed you are doing light appears to pass by in any direction AT the speed of light.

That is what relativity is all about

Well unfortunately, I'm not that well educated in the laws of physics so I don't know what relativity is all about. I still don't understand though. If you are travelling at 60 mph in a car and a car over takes you going at 70 mph would it not seem the same as if you are standing still and a car travels past you at 10 mph? Why does this not work if you were in space and travelling just below the speed of light and a light ray went past you?

The correct formula for difference of speeds (valid for low as for near or = c speeds) is this:

δV = (V₁ - v)/( 1 - V₁*v/c²)

where:

V₁ = your car's speed (with respect to an observer on Earth);
v =  the object's speed (with respect to an observer on Earth);
δV =  the object's speed with respect to you.

Providing that your speed can never be = c, you can substitute in the previous formula any values you want. Try, it's interesting. Trying onself is much more valuable than having the result from someone or something else.

Try with V₁ = 60 mph, v = 70 mph, as in your example, then with V₁ = 60 mph and v = c or near c. Of course you have to transform mph in m/s.
Write your results here.