Isn't everything relative to something?
 

Is there anything that is absolute? From what I have learned, everything in science is simply based on everything previous science has discovered.

Of course, there are the irreducible primaries (axioms), but what are those other than arbitrary words pieced together to make sense of our universe. The words used to describe these axioms are relative to languages, which we all know aren't absolute. Man created language arbitrarilly. So then, what is absolute?

Actually, a great deal of science is based on physical primatives, which while somewhat arbitrarily defined (time, space, etc), are not relative to any other measure. In that sense, no matter what language or inertial frame you choose to use them in, they are consistant. Being an "absolute" (which doesn't really mean anything) doesn't matter.

To wit- science and engineering is the search for the correct, not the absolute. If you build a bridge and it stands, you are correct- the math was valid, the physical theory sound. If the bridge falls, you were wrong.

Also, from engineering we find that even being totally correct is not necessary. It's only necessary to be close to correct, the degree of which is defined by life time of the bridge, liability, standards set by engineering bodies, and so on.

While the reality of language limiting thought is a bummer, it's not so bad that you still can't make actual progress. Hell, study quantum mechanics some time, then tell me you really give a tin shit about "absolutes".

There are no absolutes.
;)

Ahh...shades, I do tend to disagree with you that. Time is in fact relative to something else, because someone had to define the meaning of time, (a second, for example). Actually, a second was originally about 1/86400 of an average solar day. We have since refined that to about 9 billion periods of a radioactive atom (I'm not sure, but I do believe it's cesium. I may have to look it up). Now, time is relative then to radioactive decay, and we haven't been nearly around long enough as humans to know whether or not the decay of Cesium changes, or is relative to, environmental settings or even the amount of "time" since it's existance.

That's just one example...for the sake of argument of course :)

I personally think you are using the wrong word, relative.
You are asking how time is defined.
Well it really can be defined by anything.
The rate you just gave will probably be redefined many times in the future, just as it has in the past.

Whereas "relative" means in how it relates to something else in comparison using the same definition.

All measurements are, are agreements by a group of people to define an aspect of the world a certain way.
That measurement can be anything.
But the aspect is real.

So I guess in those terms, you might call that "relative",
however that's not how it's traditionally used.
Most in the scientific community, say it's "defined" differently.
Or it's "standard" is different.

That's what confused me about your question at first.

Yes, everything that we do is described by our definitions,
and those can be arbitrary,
so you have to get everyone to agree on definitions.
before you can explain, work on or debate the aspects.

While you can argue about specific measurements, properties of a medium can be proven absolutely. For example, water in an Earth atmosphere at sea level boils at 100 C, or 272 F, or so many Joules per kilogram or whatever. Whichever system you approach it from, you find that water still boils at the same consistent predicted point, and that those points, when compared between systems, are identical. In that sense, it is an absolute. That's why whichever system you use to define something doesn't really matter, as long as it's internally consistent and interoperable with known consistent systems.

The raltiveness confused me also- we think as relative being as an operation between frames of reference in engineering, not as a theory based on another theory. The reason why we label almost everything as a theory is to leave open the door to future improvements, not because we aren't pretty damn sure about them.

Science, like everything else that worth anything, is ever changing. What we see as absolutely right today they shall laugh at us about tomorow. I cam just see the scientist of tomorow.. "Did you know that they ACTULLY believed in atoms once? We now of course know that those are just hallucinations brought on the constant (but small) amount of marijuana smoke covering the earth" There are however a few things that DO stay the same. Always. I figure about the only one that this is true for IS time. The earth could slow down and are days start taking 26 hours but time itself hasn't slowed. Or we could get closer to the sun and a year would only take 350 days. Again, the only thing that has changed is our preciption of time. Of course speed is the same thing (Sorta). How fast something is going is all relative to how you look at it BUT just because I take a measurement of a car going down a highway from a standstill and get a speed of 50mph and then got in the car and timed it again and got 0mph dosn't mean the car slowed down. It is still going the same speed. The only thing that has changed is my preception.

to BBtB...

Relativity theory states that time is only relative to your frame of reference. For example, if we measure the lifespan of a particle in an accelerator, it could measure 1x10-9 sec...but it's ACTUAL lifespan is greater than that. Einstein called it time dialation. Time slows with respect to the speed at which you are travelling...

everything is based on LIFE AS WE KNOW IT! and only that. if there are aliens that are energy based we would never find them because all scientists are looking for are carbon based life forms and radio waves!

but yes i agree that there are no absolutes... except Absolute Zero... which hasn't been reached, so yea lol

Yea but wait till they figure out to put a few ice cubes in the mix. I but they get that like that.

aside from absolute zero, which is, by definition, an absolute, I think mathematics are absolute.

for example:

1+1=2 (in base 10)
1+1=10 (in binary)

the same thing said two different ways, but the basic truth of either is independent of anything else.

mathematics depends on nothing but itself, relative of nothing. mathematics is logic defined. and that is, imo, an absolute.

yes! Mathematics is an absolute for one reason and one reason only. Math exists only in our minds. As soon as math is applied to science, it no longer becomes absolute. For example, nothing can measure absolutely 1 cm. It can be 1 cm or 1.0 cm or 1.00 cm. but an exact 1 would be 1.000000000000000000 with zeroes out to infinity (which is a direction, not a number), which is impossible.

I do agree that anything that exists SOLELY in our minds can be absolute.

I've always asked the question.

Well you've got constants...
Why are they constant?

What makes them what they are?
What is their underlying nature?

Too many...even scientists take these measurements for granted,
without explaining why.

I recall that from chemistry and phsyics in high school. We always had equations for this and that and they almost always had a constant in them. As long as you used the constant right you got the right answer. That was about the best answer I could ever get out of the teacher over those. I was of course the kid who always asked why to everything. You annoy EVERYONE that way but you do learn alot. Its a good thing to use later in life.

Techincally, everything is relative. Name one thing that is not relative. Not even math is absolute. 1 is only 1 in relation to 0 and 2, and all the numbers in between. There is no "red" because some things are redder than others, or less red. Where you stand or sit is not absolute, because your position can easily be described by the relationship between the distance that you are from all of the objects around you. Even abstract ideas like, "yes" and "no" are not absolute. To come to the decision of "yes" or "no" one must first contemplate the issue, and one often goes through the answers "yes" and "no" until an answer is reached and spoken aloud. Therefore "yes" is relative to "no" and vice-versa. Nothing is absolute. Its a fun world, isn't it :D

I disagree with you there Stiltzkin.

1 would be 1 whether or not 0 or 2 existed. In our minds we have defined 1 as an absolute, just as we defined 0 and 2.

This somewhat reminds me of my physics teacher, who convinced half of my class that students at MIT discovered a number between 6 and 7, and now everything that we knew in math had to be changed because they discovered a new number....

A new number...now that would be funny. If that actually happened, this world would collapse overnight because of the immense changes needed to be made.

I think what many of you are mixing up are the concepts and the sematics (or the notation)

Take for insatnce the value of Pi.

We take pi = 3.14159....

This is purely notational, the mere idea that the value of pi changes when you write it in a different base is ludicrous!

In a similar way, we represent '3' in speech by saying three, the french on the other hand say trois. Does this fact mean that we are in some way refering to a different value? Of course not!

Similarly I would claim that mathematics is absolute. Mathematics is based on axioms, but these axioms are not relative to anything else. they simply are.

I really hate this new fad of the sociologist claim of scientific relativism. I would point you to the excellent eassy of Martin Gardner entitled Alan Sokal's Hilarious Hoax, collected in his book, Did Adam and Eve have Navels? In fact, I would reccomend ALL of the essays in this book. It is a masterpiece of "debunkery" in all areas of pseudoscience and other assorted nonscence.

Everything is absolute. But ONLY everything. Break it up and it becomes relative.

ummmm....
1cm = 1.0cm = 1.00cm = 1.000000000000cm

Again we are talking about notation. However, I do agree with you that we cannot measure things completely accurately. We only ever measure to a required accuracy. Eg, when constructing a chair, a carpenter would be happy with a measurement of 1cm correct to one decimal place. Fractions of milimeters are to the carpenter negligible.

But just because we cannot measure the length of something exactly doesn't mean that it doesn't have an absolute length.

not to insult your sig says you are a scientist so you should know that, that is completly wrong. i am not a fan of Significant Digits, but 1.0cm and 1.00000cm are not the same.

i do agree with your last statement. everything does have an absolute measuer, but measurment isn't absolute.

similar to what RatherThanWords said, only concepts and ideas are absolute because they are not applied.

But without being able to measure it, how can we know that it's length is absolute? On a more practical scale, we can never measure the absolute surface area of a concrete slab because variations in temperate cause the concrete to subsequently expand and contract. Therefore, we know that the surface area of a concrete slab is relative to the current temperature, which in turn is relative to many other factors. Apply this to the chair and you will see that the chair doesn't have an absolute height.

Not only temperature, but actual molecular weight is going to vary dependent on the interactions with the surroundings. So you cannot have a real exact measure.

"WRONG!" One could reply. "I can get the exact measurements if I get one within a snapshot of time."

Well... with chaos theory, fractals, and subatomic particles it is even complicated if one tries to get a fully accurate measurement of an object in a snapshot of time as well.

Again, we are getting stuck in semantics. The value of 1.0000000000000000 implys something different to a value of 1.0 , but they are the same actual value. Implications and connotations should be left firmly in the lingustic world, IMO.

Not being able to measure precisely is nothing new to science. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle assures us of this quite plainly, and is one of the tennants for that "whole-other science" quantum mechanics.

There is however, one thing that science is relative to: That is our perception of reality. We can only scientifically theorise about phenomona which we can observe in one way or another. This is ultimately where the boundries of science lie.

To give an example. We are living in what we have called a universe. We have no PROOF that thiis is the only universe. If we take the distance across the universe to be billions (?) of light years, who is to say that if we (somehow) travelled trillions of lightyears from the edge of the universe that we wouldn't come across another "universe". Then we also have to take into account the possibility of other spacial dimensions, wherin other. completely alien universes could exist. Further from that, there is the current, rather popular idea of an infinitude of universes termed a "multiverse" being an explation for some of the strange quantum behaviours.

so essentially science is there to explain what we see. Based on that, we can conclude that science is relative to what we can experience.