# Not everything is relative

Bucharest, Romania
November 29, 2015 7:00am CST
Even though it might seem hard to believe, not everything is relative or at least it should not be considered relative. A geometrical figure cannot be both a square and a circle at the same time. Let's assume that two people are having an image in front of them, a geometrical figure (let's just call that G.F.). Let us say that one of them claims that it is a circle while the other one claims that it is a square. Can both of them be right at the same time? No, they can't both be right. They could both be wrong about it because that G.F. might actually be a triangle but they surely are not both right about it. Why? Well simply because a geometrical figure cannot be a square and a circle at the same time. It is either a circle or a square or anything else that you could think of. If people have accepted through convention the fact that a closed geometrical figure that is defined as the total number of points on a plane equidistant from a specific fixed point called Center is called a Circle, why would anyone come and contradict that and say "this is not a circle, it is a square"? Well, it has already been conventionally accepted that that figure is called a circle not a square, so why do some people insist that the circle is a square and not a circle? You see, this is an absolute notion, not a relative. That G.F. is a circle regardless of how much some people out there would like to call it a square or a triangle or anything else. This is not subjected to personal interpretation like preferences are. One might prefer lobster over pork because this is what they like more but they can't call the lobster a pig or the pig a lobster. The same is valid for circle and square: one might claim that he likes the circle more than the square but he/she cannot claim that the circle is a square or the other way around. Is this clear enough? Sorry if I made it too complicated.
5 people like this
6 responses
• Budennovsk, Russian Federation
29 Nov 15
2 people like this
• Bucharest, Romania
29 Nov 15
Wrong drawing. It is an optical illusion. That is a different issue.
• North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
29 Nov 15
This one is an optical illusion.
1 person likes this
• United States
4 Dec 15
What about it @TypicalRussian ? the diagram picture seems ordinary and correct, so what am I missing ?
@cindiowens (4572)
• North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
29 Nov 15
Very clear indeed.
2 people like this
@scheng1 (24741)
• Singapore
29 Nov 15
I only know that our expenses are absolute. if you have a bill for \$100, that is an absolute figure, and there is no way you can make it relative to feel better about it. The money in the bank is absolute too.
1 person likes this
• Bucharest, Romania
29 Nov 15
yeah. That is precisely my point too.
@DianneN (88228)
• United States
21 Jan 16
Thanks for the excellent explanation.
@ataboy (755)
• United States
7 Dec 15
Suppose I call G.F. "A.N." for Another Name. While it has all the same properties as G.F. it makes me seem slightly more annoying! Now A.N. could, under numerous circumstances be a circle, by definition, according to one observer and a square, by definition, according to another. making the two shapes very much relative. If your referring to 'absolute truths', which many legitimately argue may not exist at all, and we certainly have no evidence of such things, then you might be right by virtue of technicality. One simple example is confirmed by Einstein's relativity (both SR and GR), where there are no preferred frames of reference - all are equally valid. So, no matter how accurately Observer 1 measures the shape to have the qualities inherent in a circle, Observer 2's (just as valid) reference frame may be moving in a manner relative to Observer 1's frame such that any and all measurements made will confirm the equally valid claim that it is a square. Space-time is quite flexible, so I'll let you imagine another scenario where a circle and a square could be one in the same using this as a mechanism. Space is often assumed to be both homogeneous and isotropic for the purposes of simplifying theories in physics/cosmology but this is far from the true nature of space-time, and this can also lead to a "circle-square". There are far more complex ways to come to similar conclusions, which I'll spare you the explanation of in the interest of brevity! But just remember that mathematics need not apply only to the natural reality that we exist in, it has many uses that make provide very complicated, yet valid solutions that are often the rule rather than the exception This can lead to some strange, unexpected answers from most people's perspectives! One slightly off-topic, but weird case-in-point: It's mathematical fact that if one could slice a pizza into an infinite number of slices, it could be reassembled into two, three, four or however many pizzas of precisely equal size volume and mass as the original.
• United States
4 Dec 15
So true and good examples where differentiation is missed, as your right not ALL things are relative