I guess that's fair. Everything I see says that relevant means having pertinence to the matter at hand while relative refers to something considered in relation to something else. This is consistent with how I have always heard the two terms used. Such as:

In order to resolve the apparent paradoxes of hover and equal flight times, the relevant concept that must be understood is relative velocity.

which is why I said it was so unintentionally ironic (😂🤣). But if you go read a bunch of definitions of relative in the dictionary, it is actually true that yours is a meaning of the word. I personally never hear it used that way to the point that it sounds wrong to me, but the dictionary is what it is. (FYI, this is what it looks like when the facts don't fit what someone says and he just acknowledges it).

I don't think I am being arrogant. I am always pretty nice to you and all FEs. You started this out here with something I would never say:

Instead of looking for someone to convince u have u tried researching? Add in some critical thought and u may get it one day.

This is extraordinary. Not only are you disputing something that has literally 100% support across all of science and engineering (no, climate change does not), but you live in a time where technology is everywhere that depends on the claim being correct. It impacts your life every day. This does not mean you are wrong, but it does mean that your claim is extraordinary.

To make such an extraordinary claim without having anything like a working alternative theory and then tell anyone who does not agree that they lack critical thought is, well, arrogant. If you think I'm arrogant, why don't you go to these guys' next meeting and explain to them your hovering helicopter and equal flight times counterexamples. Let's see what happens 😂🤣.

I see there is still no answer on what is wrong with the claim the north pole is 149 feet further than the south pole from the center. Shocking 😂🤣.