The Universe can not be infinite, because there is no "actual" infinity in material world. Therefore, the Universe has finite volume. A physical thing can not fly into nothing, so the space has no boundaries (no boundary of space with "no space"). Finite Universe without boundaries is ball-like. Thus, the space is curved. And the curved space is not flat, so the space is not absolute in Newtonian sense.

Vrajeshkumar,

 “…Would someone explain why is space not absolute? (using simple daily routine example or logic)....”

- to answer on this question is necessary previously to define – what is the space?

Since the notion “Space”, and rather similar notion “Time”, are Meta-physical and Meta-mainstream-philosophical notions, they can be properly defined in framework of the “The Information as Absolute” conception (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute

).

But for "daily and simple" use it is enough to know a few rather evident points:

- what is  space, time, and spacetime? – the space and time as possibilities for anything to be existent form the spacetime, which is, first of all, nothing more then some “empty container”, where the system “Matter” is placed;

- what is notion “absolute” relating to the space [time and spacetime]? The “absolute” space/time/spacetime in this case means that this spacetime doesn’t depend on – what is placed in it; including masses, reference frames, etc. And that is indeed so.

I.e., simply in the  reality there is/are no “non-absolute” space/time/spacetime, including so called “relativistic effects” (“dilation”, “contraction”, “curvature”, etc.) that are postulated in the special and general relativity – they simply don’t exist. That’s all.

Cheers

Article the Information as Absolute

There can be no proof that space is not absolute, because there exists a viable theory of gravity where space is absolute, and what looks like curvature is simply caused by distortion of clocks and rulers by the ether.  An ether theory, yes, see http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205035 for the details, but published in a peer-reviewed journal, and this theory has the Einstein equations of General Relativity as a natural limit, while the Einstein Equivalence Principle is derived there and holds exactly.  

@Dmitri, finite universe without boundary can be torus-like, and a torus allows for a flat metric, so your proof is wrong.  

What can be easily explained is what it means if space is curved.  We all know that u = 2 pi r for a circle in Euclidean space.  But this is mathematics, what about reality?  One can use rulers and measure.  The result may be a different one.  If it is different, the "metric" of this space is not Euclidean. It is named "curved", because on a curved surface .  u = 2 pi r does not hold.  Look at the circle on the surface of the Earth, with the center at the North pole, which is named equator.  Here we have simply u = 4 r.  

But there may be very different reasons for the failure of u = 2 pi r.  Some may have nothing to do with any real "curvature of space".  For example, our rulers become greater if temperature increases.  Now measure with such rulers a circle which is hot near the center but cold outside. This will give some u > 2 pi r, because the radius looks shorter once measured with the hotter, longer rulers.

So, "curvature" is simply a mathematical name for the results of measurements with rulers, once the ideal Euclidean property u = 2 pi r does not hold.  It does not tell us anything about the reasons for this failure.  

Thanks to all for sharing their views.

Bdw, I think, whatever theories we have studied or learned and we are following nowadays,  although they are built on / for / about / with absolute space,  I would say like time, its going to be local / limited phenomenon kind of thing. 

I mean "the space is not absolute" is going to change the whole scenario in future.

@ Sergey Shevchenko

Even in metaphysical terms it is already proved that space is not absolute by ancient indian scholars, available in Sanskrit literature.

Vrajeshkumar, the "space is not absolute" mantra is already part of the Minkowski interpretation of special relativity (which has, yet, an absolute spacetime) and fully developed in general relativity.  Thus, this is nothing about the future, but inherent part of the last century of physics. If something is going to change in future in this question, it can only go back to a theory where space is absolute. 

Fine.  Thanks.

BDW by "the space is not absolute" is going to change the whole scenario in future, I mean that this fact will change lives, science and technology that will become visible.  

Would you pls give some examples of todays technology, life that has evolved as an application of this fact?

In special relativity the concept of simultaneity is a relative one, i.e. two events which are simultaneous for a given observer, may not be so for some other inertial observer moving with respect to the latter. Now, in the process of measurement of a spatial length, the observer carrying on the experiment, MUST use the concept of simultaneity. That’s the reason why the result of any measurement of a spatial length is a relative one.

According to SR and GR, the length, mass and time are relative. Since length is relative, the space cannot be absolute. The distance between two points in space is different for different observers, the distance depends on the velocity as well as the mass of the observer. For an observer travelling at near light speed, the universe will be very small (length contraction).

Space is not absolute in General Relativity and Special Relativity which bring forward the concept of relativity of simultaneity as a consequence of the limited speed of light, it is the simplest interpretation. This is not necessarily the truth but so far works well in accelerators for special relativity and for orbits and massless objects (lensing, Shapiro) for GR.

The space-time which mixes physcal dimensions and lower to 3.5 the degrees of freedom at disposal compared to the Newtonian 3+Time, is a good trick which will eventually converge in something else.

The Thermalization of the background gives 4 as T4 is the Wien's law. SInce thermodynamics does not in general involve time, but it determines it, this means that 3.5 should be replaced by 3+1+ TIME, so basically a 4 dimensional continuum + an absolute time, the additional dimension is related to the speed of light which is postulated constant and in GR the price to pay is the bending of the metrics, also according to Eddington.

Define first what do you mean by "space" and what do you mean by  " absolute" .Then I will try to answer.

In the mean time read please our paper on CMB on this site .That pwrhaps will help

According to its most famous proponent, Sir Isaac Newton, for example, absolute time (which is also sometimes known as “Newtonian time”) exists independently of any perceiver, progresses at a consistent pace throughout the universe, is measurable but imperceptible, and can only be truly understood mathematically. For Newton, absolute time and space were independent and separate aspects of objective reality, and not dependent on physical events or on each other.

Every event occurs at some point in space at some instant in time.Each inertial   may be  form by a cubic three-dimensional lattices of identical measuring rods (meter sticks)  with a recording clock   at each intersection.

Consider    for example  the Galilean transformation between the coordinates (x, y, z, t) and $(x', y', z',t')$ of a single arbitrary event, as measured in two coordinate systems S and $S'$, in uniform relative motion (velocity v) in their common x and $x'$  directions, with their spatial origins coinciding at time  $t = t' = 0$.

Note  that  from    the assumption of a universal time independent of the relative motion of different observers  and that there is   equipments (here clocks) to measure flow of time it     follows  t’=t  and  x’=x-vt.

If we accept  the invariance of light speed which  is one of the postulates of special relativity then  Lorentz transformations (LT)   are appropriate .

LT  supersede the Galilean transformation of Newtonian physics, which assumes an absolute space and time (see Galilean relativity). The Galilean transformation is a good approximation only at relative speeds much smaller than the speed of light. Lorentz transformations have a number of unintuitive features that do not appear in Galilean transformations. For example, they reflect the fact that observers moving at different velocities may measure different distances, elapsed times, and even different orderings of events, but always such that the speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames.

I have written (more accurately, started to write, up to now only SR is covered) an introduction into relativity which also introduces the Lorentz ether.  I hope it may be helpful. 

http://ilja-schmelzer.de/ether/introduction.php

“Would someone explain why is space not absolute? ”

-    nobody can explain “why is space not absolute?”, simply because of it is just absolute.

That follows from “simple  examples or logic”: the space is postulated in the special relativity theory as non-absolute, i.e. there is no absolute space, the time and  the spacetime; correspondingly all/every inertial reference frames are totally and completely equivalent and so every such frame has own concrete 4D spacetime, which is the Minkowski space.

The last seems evidently physically fantastic, since from that logically directly and unambiguously follows that in Universe simultaneously there exist so many different spacetimes how many different inertial reference frames exist, and, correspondingly, thus there exist so  many different Matters.

Even the absurd logical consequence above is enough to infer, from the proof by contradiction, that  the SR postulates above aren’t true;  besides from these postulates follow any number of other nonsensical logical and physical consequences; mostly known – the Dingle problem in the SR.

Thus Matter exists and evolves in the absolute spacetime, which is [5]4D Euclidian spacetime/ “empty container”. The Newtonian spacetime is rather good approximation, which has, nonetheless, principal flaw -  the assertion “…Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external…” isn’t correct, the time hasn’t some inherent flows, arrows, etc.

 What are the notions/phenomena “Space”, “Time”, “Spacetime” and how they are realized in Matter – see SS post in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_time_continous_or_discrite_quantum_What_are_the_quanta_of_time?tpr_view=JvWXlx1cG4gSIXja7c3YVmhpRmhGWXE1gjQB_1#5926baef404854d2f76ca4a8  ,and the links in the post.

Besides could be useful to read the paper in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317067896_The_notion_speed_and_the_Lorentz_transformations 

 Cheers

Working Paper The notion " speed " and the Lorentz transformations

@ Vrajeshkumar G. Khambholja

Your question sems interesting to me.  Perhaps   professors

@Christian Baumgarten and @Ilja Schmelzer    can give more details to his answer.

There is also   a paper   by  Rodrigo de Abreu and Vasco Guerra, Speakable and unspeakable in special relativity. I.

Synchronization and clock rhythms. http://vixra.org/pdf/1306.0179v1.pdf.

The traditional presentation of special relativity  is not based  on  the notion of absolute motion, emphasizing the antagonism   of the Lorentz-Poincare’s views and Einstein’s ideas. They write  ''However, a weaker formulation   of the postulates allows to recover all the mathematical results from Einstein’s special   relativity and reveals that both viewpoints are merely different perspectives of one and   the same theory. The apparent contradiction simply stems from different procedures   for clock “synchronization,” associated with different choices of the  coordinates   used  to  describe   the physical world''.

"I mean "the space is not absolute" is going to change the whole scenario in future."

It is an old idea and has never given anything.  It became mainstream 1915, with GR. And the only result of this idea is that GR quantization remains an open problem.  See http://ilja-schmelzer.de/relativity/quantumGR.php how this creates quantization problems.  This is something it is doing already all the time since the creation of quantum theory.  

Dear  Christian Baumgarten,

I will try to read your manuscript and to understand QM  approach. But first  I need to

try to clarify  some simpler questions.

It seems to me   that the question about absolute time   can be related to   the notion  of an inertial frame.

At first glance it seems to me that the notion of   inertial frame is not so simple and I try to clarify it.

Q1. If we suppose that we  have an inertial frame   and  two  measuring time $t$ and  $\tau$.  What is relation between $t$ and  $\tau$?

Perhaps this a naïve question.

Are there  some references   related to   Q1 ?

“…the background of this question is the idea that space should be fundamental in the sense that we can not think of matter without thinking of its location. And of course, we expect that the "location" is "space"…”

-  that is indeed true [besides the “expect” – the Matter’s location is indeed the space, more correctly – the spacetime]. but

“… However, this is not necessarily so. In QM we learn that there is an equivalent space, namely momentum space…Hence, not only relativity, but even more QM puts a question mark behind our naive assumptions that matter is fundamentally located in space…”

-  that is evidently rather “strange” claim, where the real spacetime, where  real Matter exists and uninterruptedly evolves, is identified, by some “non-evident” reason, with purely abstract human’s product – spaces in physical theories, where, for example in  the SR, indeed evidently unreal imaginary Minkowski space is claimed as real Matter’s space[time]. But that is one of the main “strange” postulates in  the relativity theory, from which any number of evidently absurd logical and physical consequences follow. Hilbert space in QM is principally complex, but till now seems nobody identified it with the real Matter’s spacetime.

A next time – see also the SS post on 3-th page – real Matter’s spacetime is absolute [5]4D Euclidian [i.e., first of all not imaginary] spacetime/[5]4D “empty container” that is composed from 3D space and 2D time.

More – see the post on 3-th page and the links in the post; though, besides, or seems more correctly in this case, first of all, see at least first 6 pages in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259463954_Measurement_of_the_absolute_speed_is_possible  , including SS replays on comments of an RG member.

Cheers

Article Measurement of the absolute speed is possible?

Christian~

 “…you argue like a Ptolemaic philosopher who defends the "evident fact" that the sun rotates around the earth. Kepler's ideas are "evidently rather strange"  …”

 -  the SS posts, comments and linked papers indeed contain rather evident for people, who are capable to think, points in physics, which are adequate to the reality.

But it turned out to be that they are just non-evident; since, in spite of that these points a number of times are commented in details more then 3 years (!!!) already, here remain many humans, who don’t understand these points till now. And who continue to write some, as they think, “non-evident” things, which evidently have no relation to the reality…

Cheers

Christian~

“…Thoughts and perception are not the same. IMHO you occasionally confuse "evidence" with "appearance"…, etc.”

I have a lot of experience of attempts to discuss with you some physical problems, and   it seems that you, instead of to discuss concrete questions where the main terms/notions/phenomena are defined on a proper level, a next time, because of you cannot to answer/concretely comment the concrete points, write something that hasn’t essential relations to the former discussion.

Using,  at that, a popular among some people “discussion trick”: when they cannot to ground some concrete things, they start to tell/write, etc. some commonplace aggressive to opponents claims that have no grounds/arguments, etc., and claiming implicitly by such a way that they are so big scientists that any argumentation for their assertions  is unnecessary – they are true by definition. Sometimes that seems rather ridiculous.

Such trick indeed turns out to be rather effective when readers are some housewives, especially if in a discussion a number of “big scientists” take part; the classical example – just numerous true the SR/GR believers and numerous housewives [of both sexes] determined  more then 100 years existence of the SR/GR as “greatest physical theories”, in spite of from these theories directly and unambiguously arbitrary number  of evidently absurd logical and physical consequence follow.

So let us return to the thread’s question, when it seems clear for any scientist that before to discuss “why the space is not absolute” is necessary to define on sufficient level – what is the space? If that isn’t so, then anything is possible, including, for example, the SR/GR postulates that real Matter’s spacetime is imaginary pseudo-Euclidian [Minkowski]/pseudo-Riemannian space  - when seems nobody till now observed imaginary space or time.

So, to begin, – do you assert till now that real  Matter/s spacetime is as  “…In QM we learn that there is an equivalent space, namely momentum space…Hence, not only relativity, but even more QM puts a question mark behind our naive assumptions that matter is fundamentally located in space”, etc.?

[Again, the answer is clear for anybody, who understands what are the space and the time [see the links in the SS posts] – that Matter’s spacetime is the “naive” absolute [5]4D Euclidian manifold in human’s theories and the absolute [5]4D Euclidian empty container, where Matter exists and evolves, in the objective reality. As well it is clear, why so strange spaces are claimed as real Matter’s spacetimes in the SR/GR – the authors of these theories didn’t understand what are the notions/phenomena “Space” and “Time”, thus in the theories these notions/phenomena aren’t defined, when if something isn’t defined, then for this something any, “fundamental” in this case, unreal properties can be – and are in the theories – postulated]

Again – write concrete and grounded comments, if that is possible; and don’t write your "IMHO"s, please; I hope that this thread not only housewives read…

Cheers

The answer is: Because c is absolute.