Einstine's Law of Relativity

[xfwayne]

If the answer to everything is relative then why are there absolutes?

 

[Ataradrac]

The General Theory of Relativity states that no experiment can locally distinguish between a uniform gravitational field and a uniform acceleration.

The Special Theory of Relativity states that the speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter what their relative speeds, and that the the laws of physics are the same in any inertial frame of reference.

There is no "law" of relativity. The theories of relativity have everything to do with gravitational physics, and nothing to do with metaphysics. So I'm not sure what you're asking.

 

[Deamiter]

I guess to put it a simpler way (in case you're not a physics buff) the theories of relativity don't say that everything is relative. One says that gravity is measurably the same as acceleration, and that time is relative between two observers.

For example, if I am moving close to the speed of light away from you, you will see time move more slowly for me. If we are BOTH moving close to the speed of light, and in the same direction, you would see time moving the same for both of us.

None of this applies outside of this specific area of physics, so no physicist is going to claim that the theory of relativity proves that there are no moral absolutes.

 

[Aeschylus]

What puts the 'relativity' in the special theory of relativity is that all non-accelerated observers agree that the laws of physics are the same. This was also the case in Newtonian physics which utilized Gallilean relativity, but special relativity was needed when some pretty important new laws were discovered - the theory of electromagnetism. In special relativity times and lengths are relative.

The General theory of relativity is a further extension of the concept of relativity (and also to include gravity which the special theory couldn't handle very well) and it says that the laws of physics are the same for all observers bar none. In the general theory the geometry of space (and more generally spacetime) is relative.

 

[kurabrhm]

If the answer to everything is relative then why are there absolutes?

Because relative is not absolute and an absolute is not a relative.
There's enough space in this world for both to co exist without any harm!!!

 

[kurabrhm]

If the answer to everything is relative then why are there absolutes?

Of course one take this further and think about whether science itself is absolute or relative!
I believe ultimately that its really a mixture of the two elements. However, there's no 100% absolutism and neither is there 100% relativism.

 

[FromTheAshes]

If the answer to everything is relative then why are there absolutes?

The heck? It's simply a statement that the various properties of an object in relationship to it's position and velocity through any of the 4 dimensions is relative to the observer, and that multiple observers will often come up with different answers, all of which are correct. It states inside the equation that there's an absolute - the speed of light.

 

[OneLastBreath]

As has been said, not everything in relativity is relative, the word just refers to how interial reference frames must be treated equally (special) and there's no seperating a gravitational reference from an accelerated reference frame (general). One example of an absolute in the theories of relativity is spacetime itself-- it serves as a benchmark for accelerated motion. Acceleration, and therefore gravity, can't be relative because one observer is obviously feeling the apparent force due to it while the other isn't. And also, as Deamiter said, just because things like time and distance are relative in physics, doesn't mean there can't be absolutes in other areas of life.