2007-03-11 15:08:34 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
Most certainly. We may think Everest is big, but it's tiny when compared to the Olympus Mons on Mars which is itself just a speck when compared to a planet.
We might think listening to Blair in PM's Questions is as close to infinity as we're likely to encounter but believe it or not, the Universe has been droning on slightly longer.
It's a long way to Tipperary (It's a long way to go.) but it's even further to go to Barnard's Star unless there's a passing Vogon fleet with their Dentrassi caterers on board. Hyper-Space cuts distances down.
2007-03-12 07:15:31 · answer #1 · answered by elflaeda 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes it is.
Any attempt to make it absolute leads to some kind of problem.
Newton tried to make it absolute. It worked OK as long as we were only concerned with simple movement and simple mechanics. If a pitcher thew a ball at 100 mph when standing on a train going at 100 mph, then the ball would appear to go 200 mph for an observer having a picnic in the field.
Problems began with electromagnetic waves (including light). Did not matter what speed the source was going or what speed the receiver was going (or any strange combination), the speed of light always seemed to be the same.
Michelson and Morley thought of an experiment to show that an absolute reference existed (called the aether). They got a null result: the speed of light was totally unaffected by earth's speed through the aether.
Conclusion was either
1) there is not aether and, therefore, nothing is absolute.
2) time does not behave exactly the same in the direction of movement. In this case, even if there is an absolute, we cannot identify it.
Einstein picked both and showed that there is no absolute frame of reference (hence: everything is relative).
2007-03-11 22:28:31 · answer #2 · answered by Raymond 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Relatively the relationship is relative.
2007-03-11 23:40:53 · answer #3 · answered by ANON 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The brain tells you whats relative.
2007-03-12 15:34:28 · answer #4 · answered by CLIVE C 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes,you must have a frame of reference to allow you to exist.
Even the non relativity to non existence is relative to existence,if not the universe could not exist.
2007-03-12 08:38:47 · answer #5 · answered by Billy Butthead 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
if everything were relative then there would be no absolute, and hence no relative, since relative only exists in relation to absolute.
So no.
2007-03-11 22:20:12 · answer #6 · answered by Iain Speed 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Little known fact.... MOST of it is. that just leaves a small portion that isn't. however, this second portion is relative to itself. Thus, if we can locate a third portion, relative to itself, but not the others, Dinner is served!
2007-03-11 22:24:10 · answer #7 · answered by Dick Knows 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only the theory! So Newton says anyway!
( I just had to edit that, I was getting confused and thought it was Einsteen first time round) good job, I realised and corrected it eh?
2007-03-11 22:16:49 · answer #8 · answered by Agony Aunt 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
relatively speaking, yes it is.
2007-03-11 22:23:09 · answer #9 · answered by DIANNE M 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who knows, kind of tired just before bed type of question aint it mate.
Gets me to sleep at least
2007-03-11 22:21:30 · answer #10 · answered by Northern Spriggan 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋