Only after it distinguishes between chirality and helicity.
OTOH, if the particles are aimed at your face, you might end up with an eye patch.
Exactly. Look at it this way: the right eye and the left eye are completely different organs. Saying that he lost his left eye isn’t saying that he lost the eye on the left side of his face; it means he lost the organ called “the left eye”. Your lower intestine doesn’t become your upper intestine if you stand on your head, right?
What is faulty with the the existing standard?
No, but it will get lots of pyramids built.
Your new paradigm is less useful than the prevailing one. A person’t left eye is their left eye, regardless whether we’re facing them or not, or, for example, when they are standing on their head. If you really are confused about the captioning you describe in the OP, you’re the one that needs to adjust, if you can.
If you can’t adjust, well, we’re not changing to suit you - after all, your view is just
How would that work when you’re talking about, for example, “the tree on the left”?
Thanks for making my day!
For verily, thou hast spoken a profound truth, which I shall carry with me forever.
(yes, I’m having a bad day at work.
Thanks for cheering me up 
)
It’s the trees’ left side.
But only if space-time is a fluid.
I missed this earlier. They’re just not absolute terms. Get over it.
Neat cite.
But suppose you met Moshe Dayan and told him he’s wearing his patch of his face on the right side of his face because it’s on your right.
And Moshe Dayan said, “Don’t be foolish. That’s not the right side of your face. That’s the left side of your face. Because it’s on my left.”
No, your *other *left.
He wore a patch opposite his eye.
It’s like Davy Crockett all over again.
That’s just silly. Why would he wear a patch on the back of his head?
That’s the beauty of the new paradigm - it explains how those two things are not different at all. I just need someone to make the math work.
It’s called a yarmulke.
Wait, don’t you mean kufi?
It could be a possibility.