The relativity paradox

I thought of this myself. If this already exists please tell me who proposed it initially.

The theory of relativity states: Everything is relative. 

So relatively, something could be true and something could be false. Could be seen as true or false depending on the perspective. 

Then think: if everything is relative, then the statement "everything is relative" is also relative, meaning it could be false at some point at some perspective, but how could that be?

Conclusion: There must be at least one objective thing. "Everything is relative" is the only objective statement. If more exact, perhaps I should say "Everything is relative, except for this statement". 

I am 14 and this is deep. Not that kind of deep, this kind of deep. Wait, deep is relative and it is not the statement, so it could be shallow seen from someone else because everything humans have set up are basically relative and non-objective.

Oops I just thought of evading homework because I told my teachers that knowledge is relative and you cannot prove that your knowledge is correct, and if it is not, there is no point in learning it.

Result: Teacher told me that in this world what is taught is true. If we consider this world as objectivity then everything taught would be true. We are in this world and we are not in every other world that potentially exists so it is no point of rejecting what is true in this universe.

are you talking about Einstein's theories of general or special relativity? or just a personal idea that everything is relative?

  Intelligence, I like that you're thinking about abstract subjects and I applaud you for it.

  What you're talking about here is definition of terms. I'd like to see an example of what you mean when you say true or false could change according to relative perspective.  I think true or false may depend on circumstance or condition or, as you say, perspective (personal opinion), or perspective (orientation).

  Regarding the way you mean "relative" in your statement, I don't think you can say "everything is relative".  Some things are, indeed, certain, because the only way to compare many things is by human definition.  For instance, if one says, "fire is hot,"  all the words in the sentence are human constructions so testing their truthfulness depends on the meanings of the words.  For a human to make the statement, "fire is hotter than ice," it is true by definition of the words .. not relative to anything.  ..But if you were to say, simply, "boiling water is hot," one could say, "not relative to lava."

  I'd like to see your examples.  Meanwhile, keep thinking.  Thinking makes us smarter.

Based on the OP you don't actually have any idea whatsoever about what the Theory of Relativity is.

  Intelligence, please don't listen to Discipulus.  Being 14, you don't need to understand the Theory of Relativity yet.  There are plenty of adults who don't have a clue.

  You've got lots of time.  Keep thinking and learning.

Well I don't think my "theory of relativity" isn't relatively the same as Einstein's "theory of relativity". Then again, to one in which cannot distinguish knowledge, they are the same. To some relative sense. Your view is the same as Discipulus_Didicit's, despite within this time and space I perceive them as distinct.

Isn't it ironic that you are using objective knowledge to dictate whether I am correct or not in such a thread you voluntarily participated in?

No, it's not.

At this moment I can tell you are tired of me talking like this, but in a sense, I am not, and in a sense, you did not deny that it is ironic for you to do that. Relativity is relative, yes.

I mean... You're saying that truth is relative and you know, that's fine. You can say that. It is incorrect and also stupid but you know... to each their own.

But then there is the entirely separate issue of you saying that this somehow has something to do with the Theory of Relativity and that's the part that makes me feel like bashing my head with a rock until I forget this thread exists because that would be less painful than continuing to have these absolutely moronic words you have typed live on within the neurons of my brain. The only reason I do not take this less painful option of rock-head bashing is because I would risk impairing my ability to function in society with the resulting brain damage.

You can bash your head with a boulder if you want. The society can relatively see you as if you didn’t exist at all.

You are correct that he doesn't need to understand the ToR.

Him pretending to understand it based on literally nothing than just reading the name of the theory... that is the problem here. If someone doesn't understand something that is one thing, someone not understanding something and also having no knowledge about it whatsoever and also pretending they understand it... that behavior should be discouraged.

No, YOU are the one who should probably stop perceiving things based on a singular meaning. Relatively I could be right, and relatively, many things are interpreted by their words, which would make this, more or less, correct. Einstein's theory of relativity is different from mine, and saying Mozart's Fugue is a fraud because Bach has a Fugue would probably be absurd. Just because there is another thing with the same name doesn't falsify my claim.

I think you are referring to an axiom on which Nihilism is based maybe?