welcome to the noncapitalletterzone

Elly, I've read that article and it isn't that innacurate. =/

holy crap you guys responded fast + i didnt use wikipedia or my schools science text book.

Whoa.

Listen. Regardless of the impossibilities of US moving through the universe faster than light, there's nothing to stop us from warping the universe around us so we get BY faster than light.

How and when?

No, it's not proven. You can't prove anything, I'm afraid. Ironically, Descartes proved it. ;)

We're pretty bloody certain that relativity holds up, because we haven't found many situations where it doesn't (Well, it doesn't explain quantum stuff all that well, but quantum stuff doesn't explain things like galaxies all that well, so it's alright). One of the results of relativity is that it's impossible to go faster then the speed of light IF you have mass and IF your velocity is currently lower then that of light, because it takes an infinite amount of energy to do so (Thanks to mass dilation). HOWEVER, there are some exceptions. First off, if you don't have mass, you can certainly go at c. Secondly, if you start off above the speed of light, for whatever reason, the barrier gets flipped - you can't go any SLOWER then light. That's more a theoretical possibility then anything, but it's a well-known physical fact - look up 'tachyons'.

Ryo, you seem to be misunderstanding 'theory'. Describing something as a 'theory', in the scientific sense, is like calling it a gold-medal-winning athlete. Theories are the pinnacle of scientific research. They tie together multiple lines of evidence in a testable, coherent explanation, and have survived the firestorm of scientific testing. Theories are BIG, man.

And before someone mentions 'laws', they're different entities - laws are mathematical relations (F=dP/dt), theories are explanations (Space bends).

Black holes ARE a region of space. When you get something contracting past it's Schwarzchild radius, it is dense enough that it essentially makes an 'infinite' dent in the universe. It shrinks to a point mass, and pushes a bloody great hole in the 3D rubber sheet that is space-time. Outside the schwarzchild radius of that object, all is as it was, it has the same gravitational pull as it did before. Inside it, you're screwed because curvature of space means that even light can't get out. It's the curvature of space that is the black hole, not the object, which by now has shrunk to an infintesmal singularity.

We know that normal laws of physics and maths apply inside a black hole because they're exactly as those laws describe them. Relativity says objects like this should exist and have these properties, and lo and behold, they do! We can't describe the singularity, as of yet, because it has infinite density and sort of screws over all the formulas, but relativity ain't perfect. We'll get to it eventually.

Finally, hawking radiation is NOT stuff 'escaping' from a black hole. It's virtual particles appearing right on the border of the hole, so that one gets sucked in before it can annihiliate the other. Please, please, please have a basic understanding of quantum AND relativity before talking about this sort of stuff, because it's quite strange, counter-intuitive, and complex.

As for conspiricies, you don't quite understand what I'm talking about. There's a difference between 'conspiricy theory' and 'conspiricy'. Conspiricy theories are normally nutty allegations that the government is in league with the homosexuals/the communists/the devil/the aliens/the hippies/the Jews/the lizardpeople/whatever. Conspiricies are where a group of people collaborate in doing something, normally something underhanded. Also, scientists are NOT the government. Governments don't say that the speed of light is absolute, scientists do. See the difference?