While I don't necessarily believe these findings will pan out to anything spectacularly noteworthy, I must say this. It's never good to dismiss scientific findings out of hand just because they don't fit in with what you already "know" to be true.
Resistance like most things on this earth are subject to the laws of physics and gravity. With E=MC2 the speed of light never changes. In that equation the energy and the mass will change...but the speed of light remains at a constant, making the idea of time travel...or breaking the light barrier while on earth a theoretical impossibility. In a situation where Earth bound physics do not apply (i.e. space) it is reasonable to believe that we could one day achieve light speed, but I feel such a breakthrough is far off and wont be seen for thousands of years.
Valid point, but then you have other facts too. Time dilation for a start, is actually a fact. Rather than the speed of light being broken, time actually lengthens. Look up Einsteins thought experiment. It's been tested, and actually does happen.
Even space isn't a perfect vacuum with zero resistance, there are still particles floating around and whatnot. But that doesn't necessarily render the speed of light impossible to reach. There are almost always holes in any scientific theory. Look at quarks, not only do they break the theory of relativity, they also break the law of conservation of mass. They can be in two places at once, and they can pop into and out of existence at random. The only real "law" in science is that there's pretty much always an exception, whether we know about it or not.
If anything went faster than the speed of light, that'd be SOME impressive results on what the mass came to be (Given Atoms quarks ect) In conclusion, if there anything faster than light, it itself would be obliterated before it matched the speed, even in a zero-resistant vaccum. OR I need to update my science. edit: And if it were Faster, it would have to be a certain Constant, also called unbreakable laws. (such as gravity, speed of light, ect ) And it too must be stable as it would decelerate quickly to match or slower of the speed of light. Given this speed is infinite too, and not from point A to point B, but rather to Point A to point Infinity, would it remain true?
I understand the visual trail thing, I just am saying we get to see a visual trail with objects moving far below light speed. I am not sure why something moving faster than light would be in any way remarkable insofar as giving us an after-image. And I'll repeat that quantum physics and special relativity are at odds with one another because quantum theory says that effects can travel faster than the speed of light, and this has proven to be the case.