whitelighter said: "Vacuum is a state of relativity I guess is the main point to come out."
If, by relativity, you mean that the word "vacuum" means different things in different situations, then that's probably correct.
But in physics there is/are thoretical meaning(s) for the word. In classical physics (Newton + Maxwell) it means a volume of space with no massive particles. Light is allowed. In QM (as has been mentioned here) you have to be careful about whether you're allowing light, since the distinction between massive and non-massive particles is not absolute the way it is in classical physics.
But those are theoretical definitions. In the real world, neither is attainable, at least not for very long or in very big volumes.
On the Earth I think the best we can do is about 10^-11 atmosphere's. But since cm3 of gas a t1 atm, has about 10^20 molecules in it, even 10^-11 of that ain't exactly empty!
I think I remember reading somewhere that in the volume of space just behind objects in orbit around the Earth there's a vacuum better than anything we can create at sea level.
And there's a very good vacuum in interstellar space; I think it's around 1 H atom/cm^3 (about 10^-20 atmospheres). That's WAY better than anything we can achieve near the earth.
By the way, in the 2nd posulate of Einstein's special theory of relativity (light always propagates through a vacuum at the same speed) he was talking about a region with no massive particles. Even though we can't achieve this in the real world, the atmosphere at sea level was empty enough for Michelson and Morley's experiment.
So, after all that, I guess you had it right (in more ways than one

); "vacuum is a state of relativity"!