I agree with you entirely, Rowen. I did not enter this thread to argue for one side or another, but rather to comment that nothing can come from arguing on the topic. For that, I have listed my opinionated, self-forged proof.
I understand the universe operates on laws. I understand that the laws are unchangeable, constant, and true. I understand that believing elsewise does not change the laws.
However, I do not understand why our laws can't be wrong. Take, for example, the various equations for velocity. The equations all state, in slightly varying syntax, that a distance covered over a certain span of time is covered at a certain velocity. You agree with this, surely. Many people agree with it. It has been proven, over and over, that a certain distance covered at a certain speed will take a certain time. And that a certain time spent moving at a certain speed will yield a change in position of a certain distance.
Now, what if an object, B, moves towards that first object, A, in the opposite direction? You agree, surely, that to somebody observing from object B, object A will be moving at a higher speed than perceived by someone standing to the side of the commotion. If I passed your parked car with my moving car at 20 miles per hour, I'd be going 20 miles per hour relative to your speed. However, If you were going 20 miles per hour towards me, I'd appear to be moving at 40 miles per hour relative to your speed. If you went at 20 miles per hour in the same direction as me, I would appear to be going at 0 miles per hour.
You agree on this, as does the majority of the world.
However, what happens when that speed gets faster and faster, until it approaches what is known to be the fastest speed at which a certain object can move? The speed of light? Well, the same equation applies, right?
Right, if you are completely motionless with regards to the object's motion. But, if you are moving towards me at 20 miles per hour, does that mean I am going, relative to you, at the speed of light plus 20 miles per hour? That would defy a Mr. Einstein's theory that you cannot move faster than the speed of light, wouldn't it.
Now, since we are more sure that nothing can move faster than the speed of light than we are of our equation, we must assume that our equation is wrong. If our equation is wrong, what can we change about it to make it right? Certainly not the distance that is covered. We can't change the speed at which it is covered either, since our speed is a constant light speed.
So, logically, the time it takes the light-speed traveling object to negotiate the distance is changed, from the perspective of the object.
We have developed an equation to satisfy this paradox, and what it amounts to is that a person traveling at light speed for 3 years, by the clock on his light-speed mobile, will have been gone far longer than that, as perceived by their brother who stayed at home.
This strange conundrum has become accepted by scientists as the truth.
Now, if you step down the speed just a bit, to 1/2 of light speed, the paradox in the times perceived by the objects will be of a lesser magnitude. But it is still there.
If you step it down even more, to 1/8th of light speed, it is an even lesser paradox. But it is still there.
So, logically, if you apply the equation for that paradox to humanly possible speeds, like the 500 miles per hour of an airliner, the difference in perceived times will be minimal. In fact, it won't be noticeable. But it will still be there.
Now imagine that this light-speed time paradox is relevant to other areas of physics. Perhaps there is some far-out difference in the powers of electricity at a certain voltage, or amperage. Perhaps there isn't. We don't know, because we haven't observed anything reach that level.
Maybe, to make it more relevant to today's times, the scientists working at the particle accelerator in Switzerland will come up with another paradox, questioning another one of our laws. Maybe they won't. But the possibility that they do is still out there, regardless how unlikely.
While our universe is ruled by laws, they are subject to change as we learn more. And, there is, for every law, a maximum amount of refining that can be done, until they achieve the ultimate accuracy.
However, what if that maximum varies from perspective, as does time in the aforementioned light speed issue?
What if everything is different, depending on perspective, what if all the laws we know are completely different from another's perspective? We'd call it heresy, wrong, or possible until further proof is determined, depending on the time period we live in.
But one day in the future, we may say it is right, irrefutably.
My point is, perspective does have a play in everything, including so-called laws. If you don't believe the light-speed paradox as I explained it, show up to a high school and sit through the last month of physics. Go to any respected scientific source, and they will confirm all I just wrote. But I expect better than that of you, Rowen. I assume this has been a very dry read for you, because you already knew this.
Now I know we've gotten quite a distance from the original thread, but perhaps all of the people who have bashed the idea of differing perspectives will step back, and look at the situation from a different perspective. But that is up to them.
Sparknotes:
Scroll back up to the top and read it, you lazy ass.
