Space / Time: Newton + SRT, Leibniz + GRT.

Space / Time: Newton + SRT, Leibniz + GRT.
===…
Newton.
Space is an absolute concept. (!) Space would continue to exist
even if all its contents vanished.
Time is an absolute concept (!) that “flows equably without
relation to anything external.”
Leibniz.
Space is a relative concept. (!) Space is not a “thing” unto itself, but
merely a web of relations among “things”. Space could no more
exist apart from the “things” that it relates.
Time is a relative concept. (!) Time is merely a relation among events.

The debate between the Newtonians and the Leibnizians continues
to the present day.
=====…
My opinion.
Newton’s absolute space (!) and absolute time (!) are correct
in SRT, in the Minkowski spacetime ( in the negative 2D,
in the Pseudo Euclidian continuum.) SRT is theory without
gravity-mass. Without gravity-mass this spacetime continuum
is “open - flat”. It is an absolute, infinite, eternal negative continuum.
This “Pseudo Euclidian continuum” spacetime has one negative
physical parameter: T=0K (zero vacuum).

Leibniz’s relative space (!) and relative time (!) are correct in the
GRT (gravity theory). GRT says that space and time are phenomena
of mass and energy. Every gravity system (like stars. planets) has
its own “closed - spherical” space and time that depends on its mass,
energy and speed. Therefor from Cosmic view these parameters
are relative, but for lodgers on the planet Earth these gravity-space
and gravity- time are absolute parameters.
===…
Conclusion.
What is the humor of debates between the Newtonians and the
Leibnizians opponents? The humor is: they both are right.
The Newton’s mechanics is correct in the Leibniz’s gravity world and
the Leibniz’s gravity world is correct in Newton’s absolute spacetime.
====…
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
====…

What is correct or incorrect is only a matter of ontological construct. Coherency in construct is all that is required for “correctness”. Truth requires:
A) Consistency/Coherency
B) Comprehensiveness
C) Relevance.

There is no more to truth than that. At this point, all of the popular constructs are partially incoherent (not counting my own). But they would not be popular if they were not useful. Look deep enough and you find that there are no such things as “farces”. But there is the aberrant effect of force, so the thought of having forces is useful, thus popular even though not totally coherent.

It is true that for sake of coherency, distance is truly formed of distinction. And that requires that something be occupying “space” for space to exist. So Leibniz had that part right (and is all provable). He also understood time, it seems. Time is certainly a relative measurement (not a thing, but a comparison of changes). Both SRT and GRT fall apart in certain situations, such as with rotating disks. They are actually merely partial ontologies. Of course quantum mechanics is merely measurement statistics, not really an ontology at all.

Realize that those naive theories are over one hundred years old and real science philosophers are past those confusions and speculations.