indeed ... very much so.

Maybe the definitions of Relative and Subjective are both relative and subjective.... Ok I'll go away now.

Wait wait wait

If a game costs X amount, but when I'm playing it, I'm inside of a plane going the speed of light, does that mean that I'm going the speed of light or that the game was overpriced?

Well if the Game costs X and your traveling at the Speed of Light C and your power supply Is still drawing energy E. Knowing that Mass is equal to Energy times the Speed of Light squared then;

Using the Formal E=MC squared. I think we can all agree that if the game was not over priced then I would have something better to do right now.

So the answer is Yes.

But the speed of light changes based on where you are in comparison to the center of the universe, so while your plane would be stuck under the local speed of light, it's absolute velocity could be over the speed of light at a different point in the universe; therefore lizard people.

But it's absoulute velocity approaches zero as you narrow the time scale EA if time is standing still you cannot measure velocity. Therefore all video games are actually free. Thus Space Pirate Lizard People.

SINCE WHEN DOES THE SPEED OF LIGHT CHANGE?

When did this happen? Was it when we went from nine planets to eight? No one told me about that either and it was fucking embarrassing when I got caught with that one in a conversation.

The quality of a game determines the price.

Everything is this ^.

I believe EBToriginal's claim is nonsense; however, some physicists theorize that the speed of light may have been different in the past.

Saying you can't measure velocity without time is like saying you can't measure temperature without a thermometer, Therefore Zombie Pirate Lizard People.
Not past, distance from the center of the universe.

If you are in a plane going at the speed of light, you can beat every game in 0 time (as measured by those outside the plane); be aware that you will still perceive time at the normal rate.

You might want to be aware that some silly nonsense has been posted in this thread, so using it to get an idea of modern physics might not be the best idea. (Of course, silly nonsense can still be fun!)

By the way, if you go faster than the speed of light, your mass becomes imaginary (as in, its square root must be negative).

Do you have an actual scientific source for this claim?

Edit: Occurred to me: How do you *define* "center of the universe"? That phrase makes absolutely no sense.

Oh shit,
dt is taking us seriously again.

Someone better get her a Valium. :P

I bet you're the type of person who goes to the Disney World, stands up and screams, "THAT'S NOT A REAL MOUSE!"

Damn I wrote a great response to this but it didn't post. I guess it's mass turned negative.

Ok first of all Pluto is still a planet. That my be under debate, but come on....

Also although for decades the speed of light was considered a universal constant as you look into things such as Theoretical Physics and I think perhaps quantum physics you run into issues where the speed of light can;t be constant.

For example in M Theory or Bubble Theory it is safe to assume that in other universe at the moment of creation or their respective big bang, that the laws of physics could have manifested different then our own. So that universe speed of light could be different.

Or for an inaccurate analogy. Imagine you are traveling at or near the speed of light and then you turn on a flashlight. Now would the light move ahead of you even faster or just stick our the bulb? Now imagine you did that while circling around a black hole maybe pointing it in different directions.

I wish I had the source for one of my thought but I know the idea of the speed of light changing almost constantly is something that read about once. But for mathematicians and science proofs it is very helpful to assume it is constant.



P.S.
Although I haven't read it there is a Wikipedia article (we all now those are super trustworthy just like valve. hehe)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light

Took you long enough to catch what you mentioned in your edit, though also Explorations in Mathematical Physics by Don Koks (Springer 2006) gives a good read of in an accelerated frame (versus how we view it in an inertial frame (which isn't inherently wrong)).