It might be useful to explain the context of your question. Is this a metaphysics question? Aesthetics question? Is there any philosopher or book that you acquired this idea from that you would like to know more about or have it elaborated upon? It sounds like you already have a good idea or have someone (Isaac Newton?) or something in mind if there is a "there must be..." in your inquiry.

There are different kinds of space. Kant wrote of an intuitional or transcendental space. This is essentially just how humans automatically conceive of space.

Examples: how small/large is Euclidean point? How thin/thick is a Eucliden line? Is it possible to draw a real triangle as perfect as an ideal triangle?

How thin is a 2-dimensional plane? Wittgenstein says the right hand glove will fit on the left hand if we could rotate it in 4d space. Well, we can use our digital concept language to suggest this but our transcendental intuition of space will not allow us to visualize this. Einstein or Newton can cook up all the math-space they want. No matter how they slice it, it cannot be perfectly measured. The number pi is an example of how math does not perfectly fit transcendental space. We can't know space directly, but only intuitively or digitally. Space-in-itself is a negation of appearance. To know the transcendentals of continuity and number is to realize that non-human experience is non-conceivable.

On further thought, if you are looking at it from some sort of metaphysical/(pseudo?) scientific perspective, absolute space is a little bit contradictory. To take one thing as "absolute," it must have an inherent unconditional existence, not relative to anything else. However, within the confines of anything "space," you inevitably get into relative notions.

Newton in Prinicpa describes space as infinitive, eternal, isotropic continuum, independent of the mind (though not a-posteriori derived), and most importantly, not affect things and not have things affect it.

Leibniz describes space in terms of a plenum, filled to the brim with all forms of monads (those which reflect the world) as well as the primary perception of the dominant monad (that which reflects the world most accurately). There is no empty space in Leibniz's conception

Kant would say that though we conceive objects, they are only as far as the imagination goes. Objects in turn are non-identical because they inhabit different parts of space. Essentially, space cannot have two unrelated sections of space (spatial relations).

Einstein would probably say that under the terms of special relativity theory, for two events distant from each other in given space, the distance apart in time will vary with the frame of reference we have. So our relation to one may be simultaneous compared to the 24 hours apart further in time. But even in this, the variance in temporal difference is not independent of spatial difference.

Newton points out perhaps some valid fundamentals but elaborations determine relativity, which seems to be contradictory. But anyway, you may like these books;

* The Shape of Space by G. Nerlich.
* Matter, Space, Motion by R. Sorabji
* Travels in Four Dimensions: The Enigmas of Space and Time by R. Le Poidevin

Thanks Vide! This is such a great subject. Here's a bit of TLP. Who said Wittgenstein wasn't transcendental?

"A genuine feature of physical objects outside of us, right-handedness and left-handedness, Kant had already decided in 1768, presupposes the existence of conscious beings. As he expresses it in the Prolegomena,

In my opinion, absolute space is transcendentally intuited. Of course this doesn't mean that space-in-itself is one way or another.

For a critique of absolute space theories (positive theories of space) and a case for a negative theory of space see Norman Swartz's Beyond Experience, chapter 8.

"Beyond Experience: Metaphysical Theories and Philosophical Constraints", by Norman Swartz