I would add to your thoughts the word "observed" before universe. What we can see is so small compared to what's out there. Some single cell organism living in the depths of the ocean has no idea what light is. Yet, it exists just a few hundred feet away. The "rules" that organism has observed for itself are very limited. There are even things we have observed that we can't explain properly or develop rules for.
It kills me when I hear people say things like "I believe there is life out there, just not intelligent life". Why must we assume we humans are the latest and greatest, when we inhabit a relatively young planet? As extraordinarily vast as the universe is, do people really believe that we live on the only habitable planet of them all? It boggles my mind that we wouldn't readily assume that we are evolutionarily behind at least some other forms of life in this universe. Sure, we've only found bacteria in this galaxy, but how can that tiny sample size be extrapolated to base an assumption about EVERYTHING else? Of course my opinion, as well as everyone else's, is pure speculation at this point, but it still baffles me at the pretentious level at which our evolutionary datum is set.
Even if we could travel the speed of light, it still sucks. The nearest solar system is 4 light years away. So that's traveling for 4 years non-stop at the speed of light, so that's still not efficient enough. Wormholes are the only way. As far as life goes, scientists estimate about 1,000,000 known proto-earths just in our galaxy alone. And thats just worlds that could sustain a life form like us. We know from the non-carbon, arsenic based bacteria they found that other base-forms are possible. To quote Contact, "If there isn't life, it's an awful waste of space."
Like Dr. French Fries said, the math basically proves that it is impossible to accelerate a body with mass to the speed of light. Not just beyond the speed of light, but to the speed of light. This is the Lorentz Factor: that is calculating the change in time(t) relative to the velocity of the observer (v) in relation to proper time (T). So if v = 0.999 * c(the speed of light), then time dilation is a factor of 22.366. So if you are traveling at 0.999 of the speed of light, then for every one 1 year that passes for you, 22.366 years would pass on earth (more or less). Edit for disclaimer: I'm not a physicist or mathematician, but this stuff has always been a hobby of mine. I could be quite wrong about any of the above statements, but it is what I understand about things. Please feel free to challenge or disprove anything I said. But if your velocity is equal to the speed of light then the time dilation factor would be undefined (1 divided by 0, which is no good). I guess that could be interpreted as the factor going to infinity, so that in one year of your percieved time, infinite time would pass on earth. Also, your mass would go to infinite as frylock said, which would requite infinite energy. These Lorentz transformations have been experimentally proven too, so as far as I'm concerned that says that it would be impossible for conventional propulsion methods to accelerate an object with mass to the speed of light. In response to the other comments about intelligent life being highly probable due to the vastness of space, I'll point to our own planet. We have discovered ~2 million species of life on earth, but the National Science Foundation's "Tree of Life" project estimates anywhere from 5 million to 100 million. However, out of all that, only 1 species has developed intelligence. Of course, 5-100 million still pales in comparison with the number of species that could exist out there, but in my opinion it makes the odds look pretty slim.
Don't forget that on Earth we have had at least 2, maybe 3 planet wide cataclysmic events. (Also that we're also due another cataclysmic event, based on average time between destructions.) It's taken roughly 4,500,000,000 years from planet birth to space travel, with several restarts on the way. A lot of people are assuming that other planets have developed in roughly the same way as us. There are probably planets out there that will develop space travel, or have already developed it but been wiped out by a cataclysmic event. Past that I'll actually believe that there is a hard limit of Light Speed travel when a craft actually tries to go that fast.
I know nothing about this but would the Lorentz Factor hold true in a vacuum (space)? An object, assuming space craft, would still have mass but with no resistance would it be possible to break through that barrier?
The Lorentz factor is just a number describing time dilation/length contraction; it "holds" everywhere. But yes, it would take an infinite amount of energy for an object with actual mass (anything other than a photon) to travel at the speed of light. Being in space in doesn't change that; it just means that light travels at roughly 300,000 [km/s], as opposed to its much slower speed in mediums like air or water. No, it wouldn't.
I think you're looking at it the wrong way. One in 100 million are fantastic odds. Look at it this way, if on Earth one in 100 million species develop intelligence, let's apply that statistic to the rest of the universe using stars. If only one in 100 million stars had a planet that harbored intelligent life, that would still mean that 700,000,000,000,000 intelligent civilizations existed in our universe. That's based on the estimate that their are 70 sextillion stars in the known universe. Given that there could be many more times as many planets (especially if you include moons), that number could be even greater.
You used the wrong form of 'there', thus your argument is invalid. Joking aside, you make a good point. I was thinking that maybe if we had 2 intelligent species out of 100 million on earth, that would say something, but just 1 isn't really indicative of a high probability, even though 1 in 100 million is pretty good on a universal scale. I always did suck at statistics for some reason.
There have been 2 intelligent species on earth, existing at the same time. And in the grand scheme of things, it wasn't very long ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal
Stephen Hawking suggested we stop broadcasting our presence to the ends of space. The odds are against us.
Fortunately, in 2001, David Duchovny discovered that we already have an advanced technology capable of defeating all arsenic-based lifeforms: Head and Shoulders. So at least we don't have to worry about them.
What I haven't seen mentioned here is the finite/infinite nature of the universe or its shape/curvature. Wikipedia has a decent summary here. This is an open question in modern cosmology and one that has many implications. For example, in a finite, positively curved universe, you could fly into space in one direction and return to Earth from a different direction, if you didn't die of old age on the way. Many (most?) cosmologists favor the infinite, flat universe, but that also has some weird implications. If you can accept that we are all (physically) just a collection of atoms and molecules arranged in a certain way, then it should be possible (though extremely unlikely) that you could take the raw materials that make you and throw them together randomly so that it creates an exact copy of yourself. Like I said, extremely unlikely. However, in an infinite universe, if there's a finite possibility of something happening, then it's guaranteed to be happening somewhere. This means that not only is there another you and another me somewhere out there, but another TiB having this same discussion. A lot of this borders on philosophy which is not my thing, but it's fun to think about from time to time. I personally favor the closed, finite Poincare Dodecahedral Space model because I like the symmetry.