@Bracewell,
The 'Standard Model' is one that has perplexed us all for some time. Recently, the standard model has come under some scrutiny with the LHC and other such experiments breaking the rules a bit (I won't go into detail, research the results at the LHC website).
So here is something to consider. Einstein, as brilliant as he was, was beyond his capacity for learning when he developed this theory. He stated so himself. Relativity was, like most brilliant ideas, something that could not be enclosed in a single idea. It had far too many answers for far too many questions and Einstein himself admitted to not knowing the full extent of this concept. When we consider ANY great idea, it is up to us to question. Nay, it is our
responsibility to question. Relativity sparked a whole new view of the world and how it works in particle reality. But does it truly explain anything? Have there not been exceptions to the rule? Of course there have. If not, then it would not be a theory but a law.
In math, it is stated that an equation which is
ever wrong is
never right. This is because an equation is supposed to be the end all of solving a problem and if it is wrong even a fraction of a percent of the time then it is only good for estimating answers sometimes. It is not a true answer.
Relativity is one way to view the material world in which Mass, Energy, Motion, are all considered seperate entities. Now let us assume, like we constantly should, that all the knowledge we possess is wrong. Let us state that the matter never moves and that, instead, the portion of the "space" which that matter occupies moves instead. So we do not take action, the universe moves and we stay still. If this were correct, relativity would be completely invalid. Have we proven this to be wrong? No. Can we? No.
So what does relativity mean if this model were to be proven true?