There ain't no mountain high and low.

In terms of "high" and "low", when defining the state of a mountain or even a crevice within the earth, is strictly relative to the state of the earth- or at least that is what is usually implied. However, what if that relativity were shifted elsewhere? Would it be foolish to assume in terms of that relativity that a particular object, be it a mountain or something else, might just exhibit both characteristics of high and low?I shall use Mount Olympus (Olympus Mons), the highest known mountain in our solar system as an example, since quite frankly, I would not wish for one to immediately assume relativity to earth. This mountain resides on Mars, and is a towering 22km in height ( https://en.wikipedia.org...;). Now in terms of relativity to Mars, one might consider this dominant figure as "high". However, this merely extends in one direction- the positive direction. Claiming that it is necessarily "tall" excludes the potential figure of a 'height' without magnitude. And although a negative height, as far as we are aware, is not actually possible, in terms of relativity to the planet itself, Olympus Mons would exhibit a height essentially of 0km when measuring it inward, past the surface of the planet. Here is an example: Dig a hole in any earthen ground, and use the soil to form a mound over the hollow hole. While the "height" may be essentially considered high 'upwards', its height is essentially lacking downwards. This is basically creating a 'negative space' and a 'positive space'. In relation to the positive space, the negative space, as no object is present, could arguably represent the "negative distance" of the hole. However, even this assumption is built on the premise that a mountain hollowed the ground beneath it, which it does not. But, this still does apply the concept of "negative space". Since there was not specifically a 'negative' space, but there still was no extra 'positive' space in the negative direction, the distance of the mountain, in the negative direction, equates to zero. Meaning, in accordance to the remainder of the planet's core, it is at an astoundingly 'low' point. Now that example was only relativity in terms of the mountain to the one particular planet. However, what if we were to assume relativity to two adjacent solar systems? For this hypothetical example, say that Mount Olympus is at point zero on all coordinates. I shall be using the y coordinate to specifically refer to "height" relativity. Place an object, say another solar system, at points 6 and -6. In accordance to point -6, on the y axis, the mountain ought to appear rather tall. However, compare point 6 to the mountain, at point zero, and the height is now "low" in comparison. In this example, "high" and "low" were systemmatically relative to space itself, and not any particular object, such as the planet it is established upon. "Antonyms" merely explain human perception of two distinct features. However, as I have mentioned, in two varying perspectives, these two antonyms can accurately assess the nature of the object. Even comparing "rich" and "poor", it is purely dependant on individualized perspective. What might be proclaimed as "poor" in a first-world country, might just well be considered "rich" in a third-world. I apologize if my argument was rather short, and this current statement only retained one distinct source. However, this topic is based on almost distinctly philosophy. Best of luck to you in the next round, Instigator; I look forward to the rebuttals and arguments.*All sources will be documented within the arguments, not after.