In Being and Time, Heidegger raises the question of the meaning of Being, a question he believes has hitherto been forgotten by philosophers.

What I am confused about is whether, in raising this question, Heidegger is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality, or rather (merely) with the reality of the human experience/condition. That is to say, is Heidegger concerned with what reality is like, in the sense that a physicist can be said to be, or is he concerned with what it is like to be a human being, more in the sense that an existentialist can be said to be? — philosophy

I believe Heidegger is concerned with something more basic than the physicist is concerned with, and phenomenologically demonstrating that that is the case, but not necessarily ultimate to reality. He seems to be concerned with what it means to be human, and he is suggesting that it is taking a stance on what we are and why that occurs. To do these, he is making sense of our continued sense-making activity. However, in doing so, I believe he is saying something very radical about the primacy of coping and meaning over any type of reflection about the world we are capable of conjuring in analysis, whether scientific or philosophic. In this sense, he seems to be more in alignment with an information theorist and than a theoretical physicist.

:up:

The problem is that for so long people have mistaken objectivity as the primordial access to truth, and thus miss what is essential about understanding, truth, meaning, being., which is that objectivity is only a modified derivative of our relating to the world in terms of the way it always has significance for, matters to, is relevant for us, in actual contexts of interaction with it. — Joshs

This is "Man is the Measure" in modern garb. Problem is that all the findings of science over the past several centuries from astronomy, geology, paleontology to biology are Copernican revolutions away from humans being at the center of the cosmos, deciding what is and what isn't. Rather, humans are just another animal among a tree of life extending back several billion years on this one little planet in a vast cosmos of planets and stars and all sorts of wonderful things. We evolved, our planet and star formed from a dust cloud out of a previous supernova, and there was a Big Bang, or so science tells us.

This makes sense, given that relativity implies a subjectivism , the recognition that our accounts of nature are relative to the way we frame our theories. — Joshs

Relativity is just as objective as Newtonian physics, but because the speed of light is a constant (which is an objective measure), space, time and mass become relative measures between frames of reference, which are objectively determined. Relativity is also about gravity and spacetime, both objective measures, but spacetime is a field whose geometry is shaped by gravity.