You're venturing into general relativity. Better to stick with special relativity,
I think that when you get into those regions you need to bring along with you the concepts of "indeterminacy" and the principle of"complementary".
The relationship between mathematical systems and the world which those systems are applied to, organise to some extent or reflect is a serious bone of contention in modern psychological and philosophical circles. And in some scientific circles quite remote from this thread.
Indeterminancy (not knowing what's going on) and the principle of complementary (relative viewpoints) cause the well known scientific problem of the interference of the observer, by observing, with what he is observing. Or, if you like, that the reality is not as he describes it nor has he an adequate vocabulary to do so. And never will have. It is a problem going back to Fichte in the 1790s in his argument for the impossibility of objectivity which I think Wittgenstein was signed up to. The attempt to eradicate subjectivity has plagued philosophers for a long time and modern science has excacerbated the situation. It began with rose-coloured spectacles and is still at that stage with the goofball anti-IDers I am dealing with here. They have not noticed modern science bring this problem into the cross-wires. Or possibly they have it on Ignore.
Such matters are of the utmost importance in the consideration of aesthetics. Religion being largely in that realm as well as in the realm of practical politics. Religion is an aesthetic experience and in some cases not disimilar to the aesthetic experience of your team scoring the winning touchdown in OT when you have bet your house on them.
This doesn't matter to the scientists in their labs trying to trick new money making gizmos out of the earth's crust but it does matter in relation to aesthetic experience to the arts in which religion participates. We are all happy to let scientists get on with their investigations and applications. With the kit I have around here I could hardly seek to object to that.
But on these matters they have moved onto another level. And their credibilty on the practical level should not be used to assume a credibility on the higher level. If it's not a higher level we are no better than pigs.
And they are so far gone with pride that to even imagine that the reciprocity between "theory" (their theory) and reality is broken down would lead them to think they are losing their wits. As they can't allow themselves to do anything like that they have to maintain that reciprocity: which is a good thing for the investigations and the applications but very questionable for a philosophy of how to teach the next generations to sort themselves out into Nobel prize winners and garbage collectors and pole dancers in the most advantageous proportions for society at large. The labs turn out garbage and need smoothly paved car parks. And somebody to make the brews and clean the bogs.
What matters is the attempt to extend this convenient and subjective "theory" of the reciprocity of the actual and the observer, on the back of its admittedly almost miraculous acheivements, to the aesthetic realm in which the emotions are engaged and the manner in which they create psychological and, possibly--I would say probably-- physiological states which are sought for and which have practical uses.
One wouldn't think of allowing the skill of a Grand Prix motor mechanic to spill over into accepting his judgement of a Beethoven sonata which would be unique to him anyway.
The attempt to parley scientific credibility into judgements affecting these matters is either a self-flattering delusion or a usage, a misappropriation, of science itself for a power grab. Blinding us with science as the saying goes. And promoting blinding 50 million kids with it which is what a few are doing. They do seem a few. Maybe they are those who are not engaged, for one reason or another, in investigations and applications as most scientists are.
These ideas subvert the logical-positivist's idea of empirical verification and the scientific method as a philosophical ground on which to rest, comforting though it is, and are of great importance in the psychosomatic realms.