In magnetism, we can apply two basic equations which for the most part, explain the forces on currents in wires, namely $ F=qB \times{v}$ and $B = \frac{\mu_0 I}{2\pi r}\hat{r}\times\hat{v}$.
The problem is, the current of the object creating the magnetic field on our particle is dependent on its 'velocity'. Moreover, the force itself depends on the velocity of the particle. I had always thought that '$v$' meant the relative velocity between both the particle in question and the source of the field, this seems like a natural interpretation of the equation because otherwise we obviously break some symmetry laws, like newton's first law. So I came to the conclusion that $I$ in this case could be expressed in terms of $v$ and vice versa.
This should work in the case of two wires with some current of some magnitude going through them, because no matter what the frame, relative magnetic fields of the positive and negative charges cancel out to the same value.
However, say we have two electron beams, one observer travelling 'with' the beams and other still as the source of the gun. The moving observer shall only see electrical repulsion between the two beams, through Gauss's law. Surely the observer at the source sees the same thing. I've been told this isn't true, that they observe different forces through an effect that is easily explained by special relativity. But wouldn't it solve the problem just as easily if we had relative velocity as a measure?
My question essentially: I think there are two mathematically consistent ways to express the laws of magnetism in classical mechanics, either through special relativity or using $v$ as relative velocity. Thus, the latter is only not true because we observed it as such. Is this the case or is there also something theoretically wrong with the second interpretation?