Nonsolid, absolute truth

I tend to enjoy parallels-by-metaphor for two reasons. First, they're fun. Second, they tend to actually shape the way societies think (for most of the people) so if one is accurate in seeing them as they happen, one can predict (and who doesn't like such a feeling of power or control!).

So I have come across an shift in physics that I think might either mirror what is already going on, might be the cause, or might be the result. Regardless, the connection is quite tight (in my opinion).

Parallel: absolute truths & matter. We tend to think of 'stuff' as 'just being there - you can't deny that the chair I'm sitting on is real!' Something like absolute truths - they're just there, you can't deny them, for in doing so you make an absolute statement and accidentally, then, prove the existence of absolute truths.

Possible parallel: "mass is no longer an inherent property of matter since it CHANGES with velocity. Instead, mass = inertial potential. Again, this makes 'mass' not really a quality solely within the object itself but only see-able (observable, measurable, understandable, etc.) using external objects or force."
What if absolute truth OR my rationality (or human rationality) is NOT an inherent property but an implication of inertia... What if what one feels, senses, thinks, etc. is only the effect of a 'truth' or 'proposition'?

Implication: 'relativity' in physics/science does NOT state that everything is relative but, instead, the OBSERVER can only have a relative relationship with the object. The mass of an object depends on MY velocity (and by extension, the object's velocity relative to mine).
Or put a little more simply (in my opinion), I can measure the speed of my car at 60 miles per hour. But that's on a planet spinning something like 1,000 mph on a planet moving at about 67,000 mph around the Sun. So how fast is my car going? It depends on the observer's relationship to my car (the object). To the police officer I'm going 75mph. To the moon, I'm going between 900 and 1,100mph (I'm NOT going to bring that before the judge!).

BUT! That doesn't make measuring worthless! Nor does it prevent there being a place in the universe where one COULD measure everything accurately - if there was a central point around which everything else rotated, for example.

EVEN MORESO - if "it's all relative" then my car sitting in my garage is going an insanely dangerous 68,000 mph in the morning (slowing down to 66,000 around 2am). This is silly because what I'm actually concerned about (for safety purposes) is inertial potential which has everything to do with the observer.

What happens when some post-modern philosophers speak of the death of the metanarrative is that they are saying, "I don't like what the potential affect certain metanarratives have (or have had!) on people/society." But that only makes sense in their own metanarrative (as many of them eventually bemoan).

My Opinion on the Practical Ramifications: What we're all looking for is a true, context-specific measurement of what is or is coming (could be, should be, will be, etc.). I don't care what speed my car is going from the perspective of the moon for that is not context-specific (me and the police officer's radar gun). Nor do I care that a physics professor can tell me that my car is going between -6,000,000 and +12,000,000 miles per hour -- that isn't 'true' because each context that contributes to that 'answer' negates the other contexts giving me all-but infinite false-positives.
This, to me, is the parallel plight of Modernity - Modernity claims to have truth but it doesn't have even CLOSE to enough accuracy for local situations. But the post-modern falicy is to state that lack of accuracy means worthlessness. Getting hit by a large truck going an inaccurate, relative 100 mph still hurts!! That inaccurate, relative assessment of speed is NOT worthless!

I need (want?) an objective (outside) observer that can think - that can measure in a way that is true AND context-specific. That can not only tell me what is REALLY going on (yet in terms that make sense to me / my context) but can also tell me what will happen to me/us if we are hit by (absorb, become, believe, etc.) the potential inertia of another object, thought, belief, etc.

This observer would, according to most every defintion I can remember ever being used throughout time, be labeled . . . .

God

Did we kill God when we made His previous, context-specific observations into Universal & Absolute? Did we replace Him with His statements? Have we not let Him unleash His potential inertia!?!?!
And for those who have tried to let God be true-and-relevant, have we found Him to be too unpredicable - too scary?