Sorry if this question seems more philosophical than scientific. It's my first post in this forum. I love learning about the way the universe works and I always have lots of questions :-) Alright, so to my point. It seems like the theory of relativity says that the faster you move (plus how much gravity you are experiencing) determines the rate at which time passes (relative to an observer). For a moment, let's imagine a region in space where gravity is so small, that it can be ignored, and that you have lots of space to travel in without worrying about running into any other gravitational field excerpted by any other object. If we keep in mind that the theoretical maximum speed that anything can move at is the speed of light, then the slowest speed is "absolute rest". Yeah yeah, "there is no absolute rest" (https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=9806) you say because you can only measure rest as compared to other observers... But I see a double standard here... Why can't you have absolute rest when you can have an absolute speed limit (speed of light) notwithstanding a second observer? In the setting above (no gravity, nothing else to compare speed with), there is still a limit of how fast you can move (plug your preferred imaginary ship that can accelerate to 0.9999 c here); your mass becomes infinite and you just can't push through the magical 300,000 km/s speed limit. Even if there is nothing else around to compare your speed with, you will experience this limit. So, what is telling you that you can't go any faster than c? What is making it so that you can't travel that fast when nothing else is around? Seems like there must be an overarching (universal) frame of reference that physics follow to limit anything to move at less than the speed of light; therefore it follows that there must be absolute rest as measured against that same overarching frame reference that exists even when there is nothing to "be relative" with. Thoughts?