Truth is relative

Con believes that I am arguing that all truth is an opinion, and therefore relative. I never stated this. It is a complete misrepresentation of my argument. I want to make it clear that I do not think "truth, laws, and facts" are opinions, I think they are objective. I claim that objective truth itself is relative. In other words, Con claims that "facts" are absolute, but he does not ever prove this claim. I will show how facts can, and indeed are, relative. To begin, my opponent did not read his own source well, an article on "Gravitation," since the article clearly states that the "Law of Gravity" is not absolute. This same article states that the "law of universal gravitation provides an accurate approximation for most calculations," whereas "modern physics describes gravitation using the general theory of relativity." In other words, the "Law of Gravity," a law that Con claims is indisputable and absolute, was proven false nearly a hundred years ago. This same article also states that the general theory of relativity, the best theory we have to explain our experience of gravity, posits that space and time are relative. As such, for every statement x, there is a space s such that in space s x is not true. Likewise, for every statement x, there is a time t such that in time t x is not true. Unless my opponent can prove otherwise, truth, according to all scientific evidence, is relative to space and time. The article also states that gravity is incompatible with quantum mechanics. And because quantum theory is the closest approximation to truth that we currently have, my opponent's claim that "gravity exists" is not absolute. To summarize: all scientific evidence about the physical world suggests that truth is relative. Source: the same Wikipedia article on gravitation that my opponent cites, http://en.wikipedia.org...... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... That "blue is blue" is a semantic issue, and because language is socially constructed and arbitrary, this supposed "objective fact" is relative. My opponent's claim, "The wavelength of blue is not subjective to MY interpretation of wavelength," is wrong. Interpretation is subjective. For something to be objective, it has to be shown to be outside of the perception of an individual subject, usually through abstract reasoning or through scientific process. Mathematical truths, for example, are objective. Mathematics provides the best example of objective truths that are relative. In the previous round, I gave proof that 1+1 can equal anything. Con did not investigate, but rather, tried to prove 1+1=2 absolutely by giving one example in which that SEEMS to be the case. But my opponent does not show that giving Josh 1 apple leads to him having 2 apples. To prove that, my opponent must use mathematical proof. You believe your keyboard exists because you experience it, but that is a subjective truth. It is something you perceive, and as such is relative. My opponent proves my point about accuracy. There are different degrees of accuracy. To prove absolute truth, my opponent must show that there is a point at which something cannot be more accurate, a limit to the degree of accuracy possible. An example: there are more accurate articles on 9/11 than a Wikipedia article (what my opponent cites). Light is a wave and/or a particle relative to the presence or absence of many factors. It is a relative truth. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...... Con attacks my final example by calling it nonsense (ad hominem), and then proceeds to give an example that, contrary to his purpose, proves my point. At some point in time and space, the earth was not, is not, or will not be, spherical. It is a truth relative to time and space. Again, look up general relativity. Con left his final request unfinished. Nonetheless, I have focused on Con's final word, gravity, with respect.