Your logic is impeccible. 
As for the OP’s question, let’s provide a more illustrative…er, illustration. Okay, so anyway, as various people have noted, no material object can equal or exceed the speed of light; if it did, it would become a supermassive singularity onto which the rest of the universe would crush. The benefit, of course, is that it would make the question posed to be a moot one (plus it would take care of the “security situation” which has caused me to be at work on a loverly Sunday afternoon), but since that interferes with my lunch plans we won’t go there, at least not until I’ve had a couple of beers.
So you’re in a car going, let us say, 99% of c (the accepted symbol for speed of light.) Owing to vB code’s inability to cope with simple symbols or LaTex coding I’m just going to refer you to this site for the equations on Lorentz contraction, but suffice it to say that weird things happen when you are moving at this velocity–even weirder than the things that happen in a David Lynch movie, though typically with less blood. Here’s a simulator that will show you the magnificent weirdness of what occurs.
Anyway, getting away from the math, here’s what happens: When you’re moving faster (relative to another locus…let us say a photon emitted by your supercharged spacecar) time compresses, as do lengths (in your direction of motion), while lengths behind you stretch out. So the light in front of you (and behind you, and beside you) all appears to be moving at c, but the rest of the universe is aging rapidly. From an “objective” POV–someone “at rest” relative to you and your photons–you are aging very slowly, and the dash clock is counting seconds as if they are eons. The faster you go, the worse it gets, until your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren are having kids who don’t even look vaguely like you and sure as hell aren’t going to visit you at the hospital after you slam into a mislaid asteroid.
So, if light appears to be moving the same speed regardless of the relative velocity of the observer…WTF? You have to account for differential energies (that is to say, the difference in momentum between an observer chasing his headlights and one content to let them fly away in front of him). How do you cope with this conundrum? You do it by accepting a change in the frequency (or reciprical wavelength) of light; when moving at relativistic speeds the light in front of you becomes (from your POV) a higher frequency, or “blueshifts”. Go fast enough and even visible light will shift into gamma ray range, which would be bad for you unless you are a cartoon superhero. The light behind you becomes “redshifted”; i.e. lower frequency (or longer wavelength), until it redshifts below visible, infrared, radio, and into invisibility. Light to the side makes a starbow, a spectrum of visible colors. That should keep the kids quietly entertained for at least a few minutes.
If you could somehow manage to achieve c the movement of time, from your POV, would stop; you’d be unable to differentiate between tomorrow and next century. You couldn’t slow down (how’d you measure time rate of change without time?), and of course, you can’t speed up. A photon, like Paris Hilton, has no sense of its past, future, or surroundings; everything in its lifespan occurs as one long, drug-hazed blur between inception and terminus. In a sense, all particles are moving at c, but most devote their velocity along the time axis (which is a one-way street AFAWK), while photons move exclusively through space and only shift “sideways” by varying frequency.
Trippy shit, eh? Now, let’s go catch 2001 down at the Arclight, and lie down underneath the screen during the wormhole sequence. I think, with the assistance of a couple ounces of Jamacan Gold, that I might just be able to figure it all out this time.
Stranger
