This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physics: Relativity High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the relativity task force. Time Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Metaphysics / Contemporary Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Metaphysics Contemporary philosophy Astronomy: Cosmology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Cosmology task force.

Want to help write or improve articles about Time? Join WikiProject Time or visit the Time Portal for a list of articles that need improving. -- Yamara 05:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is meant with "existence" in the intro? At first sight the use of that word is in conflict with the topic, as absolute space was assumed in Newtonian mechanics to *exist* but impossible to measure directly. Nothing prohibits the same for simultaneity, contrary to the (unreferenced) claim in the article. Harald88 (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The theory of relativity does not allow the existence of absolute time because of nonexistence of absolute simultaneity." should be something like "SR does not assign a coherent physical meaning to absolute universal time." It should also make clear that other well known qualification about the state of Physics ATM and the SM-GR-SR situation in particular. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 06:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Grand Narrative of the article is the replacement of absolute concepts with relative ones, is the title appopriate? Should it be called something like Absolute and Relative Space and Time? 1Z (talk) 13:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As outlined in ^[1], the philosophical and physical concepts of absolute space are different, indeed, in ^[2] it is noted that in the philosophical sense, modern physics subscribes to absolute space, even if it is relational in the scientific sense. Might it be better to split this article into two?

Deep-brown (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The opening section contains these statements: "Unlike relative time, Newton believed absolute time was imperceptible and could only be understood mathematically. According to Newton, humans are only capable of perceiving absolute time, which is a measurement of perceivable objects in motion (like the moon or sun)."

So...absolute time is imperceptible, AND humans are only capable of perceiving absolute time...??? Maybe a scientist can explain this better, because it doesn't make sense to me. Xaxafrad (talk) 08:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The section on Einstein's later views does not introduce the aether topic sufficiently, nor explain why this is significant to the topic. A reader may wonder what the aether (ether) is and why it pertains to this topic. The quotes are excessively lengthy and are not introduced, which effect is exaggerated since the preamble lacks detail. How were Einstein's (changing) views on aether important in the development of the ideas of absolute time and space? I would remove this section until a suitable alternative is written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.217.122.179 (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DVdm: I think we perhaps disagree about whether Luminiferous aether is a suitable link for Einstein's concept, but I'm willing to grant that it properly refers to the concept which Einstein replaced.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not for Einstein's "own" concept, but in the section context, it's all we have indeed. - DVdm (talk) 18:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Absolute space and time. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101104022846/http://www.oe.eclipse.co.uk/nom/aether.htm to http://www.oe.eclipse.co.uk/nom/aether.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The last section states "There appears to be absolute space in relation to the distant stars", which of course is self-contradictory. Motion in relation to the distant stars is by definition relative motion, not anything absolute. 1.75.6.11 (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Absolute space and time. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100802120105/http://www.mathem.pub.ro/proc/bsgp-10/0KOSTRO.PDF to http://www.mathem.pub.ro/proc/bsgp-10/0KOSTRO.PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]