[nilak (OP)]

Starting from the wave / particle duality when we observe usual waves like sound or water waves, we know they are actually made of molecules, that we can imagine being particles. That means to have a wave you need particles interacting following some rules/laws. However, when we zoom in, it might slightly different, but the same idea.
We can define space as a made of infinitely small points (infinitely small is not equal to zero) close together. To correlate with what we know about relativity, we can define space as having different densities. An absolute density cannot be measured because there is always an infinity of points in a fixed volume. It is not quite an aether.
Each point in space has some properties. Mass corresponds to high density of space. Properties can be transfered to the next point. The speed of transfer between two adjiacent points is alwys the same and it is c. The time of transfer is infinitely small. c=dx/dt. A universal time cannot be set because we don't know what density of space to refer to.
Magnetic field is a distribution of properties and values for points in space.
Because space is not homogenous the time passing in different regions of space apears to varry. It is similar or possibly equivalent to spacetime concept from general relativity.
Now lets imagine how objects we know interact, like photons.
Heavy mass increases space density. All properties traveling in that region of space will slow down but their "internal clocks" will also tick slower, so they
don't feel the difference.
Photons have two properties we are interested now, the magnetic and electric properties.
Depending on how it is generated (length of emission), when the magnetic properties starts to travel in one direction. The magnetic values on a perpendicular axis will also travel at the same speed. But there is also the Electric field that acts on the magnetic field. The result is that somehow the magnetic and electric properties follow a straight line. The values that travel perpendicular cannot travel too far and always follow the wave. Thus the photon information is not lost sideways and sideway interactions are whith some small limits.
When more information is pushed into a photon, it cannot increase its speed because the space in front has the same density. Hence, it increases its frequency similarily to an object traveling through air. Or, say we have a wave and want to push it faster. You can't. When you let it free, it keeps it frequency and then the speed is the same. (On the other hand water waves also have amplitude that if changed, speed changes, so we compare same amplitude).
Heavy "particles/objects" like electrons have their mass generated by the density of space. The density travels along with the electron and the electron frequency appears to increase when compared to light "particles". The electrons are simply a collection of space properties gradually condensed in the space it occupies.
I didn't have time to analyze the quantum behaviour or more complicated objects like quarks and gluons. It is only a simple concept, that I want to know wether it can be a starting point or not. For example entanglement could occur if the density of space on the line of entanglement is infinitely small ( not zero). However, apparently there is nothing to cause the space density to change.
 Retrocausality would ony be an illusion for simgle waves. If the wave is reflected perfectly back it is equivalent to going back in time but only for that wave alone.
This concept assumes globally time is always one way. Locally, it may appear to go backwards but it is still forward. For example if an universe in a box at some point information would start going exactly in reverse it would still be going forward it time. When it reaches the starting point the direction of motion  can't switch back and breaks the cycle backwards.
I'm not an expert so things I' ve said here might be silly. If you can falsify this concept or some aspects no problem.

[GoC]

    Eventually the dual concept of mass and energy will be accepted by main stream. Your ideas have a basis in change but do not follow relativity in a logical manner. In order for c to be a uniform constant, the energy state of the universe has to be constant. So fundamental energy is the same throughout the universe. Time is fundamental energy that causes motion and that motion causes time. If everything were frozen in place where electrons did not move time would not exist (like in a black hole). So now we have a definition of time = to motion and fundamental motion is c through space.

    Your particles of space have to be the cause of relativity not just work with relativity. My personal understanding come from thinking about relativity for most of my life almost to the point of being an obsession. To the logical mind mechanics has to rule physics that include mathematics. Mathematics of the observations of relativity have been applied so this suggests an understanding of ratios using the speed of light. Without mass this is a very simple concept. That fundamental motion is uniform and c. Its only when we add mass that we have light, magnetism, electricity and the wavelength spectrum.

     Where does mass mechanically receive the ability of movement? From c of course. Any other direction moves us away from the cause of relativity.

[guest39538]

Starting from the wave / particle duality when we observe usual waves like sound or water waves, we know they are actually made of molecules, that we can imagine being particles. That means to have a wave you need particles interacting following some rules/laws. However, when we zoom in, it might slightly different, but the same idea.
We can define space as a made of infinitely small points (infinitely small is not equal to zero) close together.

An interesting post, I have not long been awake so will re-read it all later when I am awake enough to give it my full attention.
The part I quoted you explain so much  better than myself. 
We can define space as infinitesimally small ''points'' of negativeness, adjoined by 0.

 

[nilak (OP)]

    ... So now we have a definition of time = to motion and fundamental motion is c through space.

    Your particles of space have to be the cause of relativity not just work with relativity. My personal understanding come from thinking about relativity for most of my life almost to the point of being an obsession. To the logical mind mechanics has to rule physics that include mathematics. Mathematics of the observations of relativity have been applied so this suggests an understanding of ratios using the speed of light. Without mass this is a very simple concept. That fundamental motion is uniform and c. Its only when we add mass that we have light, magnetism, electricity and the wavelength spectrum.

     Where does mass mechanically receive the ability of movement? From c of course. Any other direction moves us away from the cause of relativity.

My model  shows that local time relates to local c. For an object, Locally c0= dx0/dt0; but for an object close to a bigger mass space is shrinked and also locally, c1=dx1/dt1. dx1<dx2. Always dt0=dt1. Then c1<c0. However they define as c0 and c1 their own causality speed and cannot be exceeded locally.

The particles of space are not quite particles because their motion is limited by how much space stretches and contracts. The source of relativity is the space itself and the time between two adjiant points which is fixed but cannot be measured since it is infinitely small.

[nilak (OP)]

Each point in space has some properties. Mass corresponds to high density of space. Properties can be transfered to the next point. The speed of transfer between two adjiacent points is alwys the same and it is c. The time of transfer is infinitely small. c=dx/dt. A universal time cannot be set because we don't know what density of space to refer to.

I think, I need to change the definition here. I had something else in my mind. The time of transfering information from one point to next one is fixed, not the speed.

[GoC]

   In relativity the speed is fixed but not the distance. Only mass affects the distance.

[Alex Dullius Siqueira]

    ... So now we have a definition of time = to motion and fundamental motion is c through space.

    Your particles of space have to be the cause of relativity not just work with relativity. My personal understanding come from thinking about relativity for most of my life almost to the point of being an obsession. To the logical mind mechanics has to rule physics that include mathematics. Mathematics of the observations of relativity have been applied so this suggests an understanding of ratios using the speed of light. Without mass this is a very simple concept. That fundamental motion is uniform and c. Its only when we add mass that we have light, magnetism, electricity and the wavelength spectrum.

     Where does mass mechanically receive the ability of movement? From c of course. Any other direction moves us away from the cause of relativity.

My model  shows that local time relates to local c. For an object, Locally c0= dx0/dt0; but for an object close to a bigger mass space is shrinked and also locally, c1=dx1/dt1. dx1<dx2. Always dt0=dt1. Then c1<c0. However they define as c0 and c1 their own causality speed and cannot be exceeded locally.

The particles of space are not quite particles because their motion is limited by how much space stretches and contracts. The source of relativity is the space itself and the time between two adjiant points which is fixed but cannot be measured since it is infinitely small.

I think, I need to change the definition here. I had something else in my mind. The time of transfering information from one point to next one is fixed, not the speed.

 As for an example, a river is flowing, and in the middle of this river is a rock, the rock will be influenced by this river it will start to move, but if this rock had so little density that it could litteraly ignore the water flowing, than from a tirth perspective, when observed by someone that is still influenced by the river flow,  the rock would seems to be moving at the river's velocity, when from the river perspective, the rock was simple stood still on its own, with the only reference as being the point of origin (A) and the destination (B)...

  I can relate with your perspective, specialy with "the time of transfering information from A to B is fixed (adrifting), not the speed (does not posses acceleration on it's own)...
 Intristing point of view, can you tell me, "I'll consider the awnser only as especulation", the question is, do you consider that, the light, has a speed when in reference to space, if so, witch number would describle this speed of light, our current one, or if not so, to be something (concept) totaly different from "speed of light"?

[nilak (OP)]

....
  I can relate with your perspective, specialy with "the time of transfering information from A to B is fixed (adrifting), not the speed (does not posses acceleration on it's own)...
 Intristing point of view, can you tell me, "I'll consider the awnser only as especulation", the question is, do you consider that, the light, has a speed when in reference to space, if so, witch number would describle this speed of light, our current one, or if not so, to be something (concept) totaly different from "speed of light"?

I realize, my concept is wrong because all observers will agree on the same time everywhere and we know that it is not the case.

[GoC]

        The speed of light is constant no matter your speed or gravitational state. The speed of light can be viewed as the energy state of space. Equivalency between SR and GR is dilation of space energy for GR and percent of energy used for SR in velocity. c is total zero point energy being used for velocity c. Even between galaxies dilation is reduced by the inverse square of the distance. Galaxies have their own dilation we view as their lensing. 75% of the light produced in a galaxy is in the center. This is where the lensing is the greatest and red shifted the most compared to our position in our own galaxy. So we view all galaxies as red shifted from our observed position. The big bang is based on SR red shift calculations when the red shift is actually GR. The background radiation is from the energy state of space being affected by mass. The increased red shift with distance is a prism effect of convex lensing needed to view further into the universe. What is wrong with current science allowing magic to rule our understanding?

[nilak (OP)]

        The speed of light is constant no matter your speed or gravitational state. The speed of light can be viewed as the energy state of space. Equivalency between SR and GR is dilation of space energy for GR and percent of energy used for SR in velocity. c is total zero point energy being used for velocity c. Even between galaxies dilation is reduced by the inverse square of the distance. Galaxies have their own dilation we view as their lensing. 75% of the light produced in a galaxy is in the center. This is where the lensing is the greatest and red shifted the most compared to our position in our own galaxy. So we view all galaxies as red shifted from our observed position. The big bang is based on SR red shift calculations when the red shift is actually GR. The background radiation is from the energy state of space being affected by mass. The increased red shift with distance is a prism effect of convex lensing needed to view further into the universe. What is wrong with current science allowing magic to rule our understanding?

I thought it might be a more natural explanation for wave and particle behavior and also to match the empirical evidence about relativity.

[GoC]

     Yes of course like sound uses air the spectrum uses dark mass energy. There is a mechanical reason for relativity.

[nilak (OP)]

     Yes of course like sound uses air the spectrum uses dark mass energy. There is a mechanical reason for relativity.

Could you tell me where I can find  some explanation about this ? I would like to know how the "spectrum" you said, relates to dark mass energy.

[GoC]

[Quote Could you tell me where I can find  some explanation about this ? I would like to know how the "spectrum" you said, relates to dark mass energy \Quote]

Main stream uses dark mass and dark energy to relate it to the standard model. Like a photon is a particle and a wave called a virtual photon. This is because relativity can not allow a photon to have any mass and space is empty. This cannot be correct mechanically. A virtual photon cannot transfer energy and relativity fails when the photon has mass. Here comes Dark Mass and Dark Energy to explain why galaxies move as a rotating disk rather than at different speeds along the disk. Mechanically a Dark Mass Energy would have to have certain properties and physically real separate from macro mass. It has to propagate the spectrum at c. It also has to move electrons relative to c because measured light and measured time are confounded in every frame. If this is not correct relativity runs on magic. Electrons move by magic. Where is it written that dark mass energy is the cause of the spectrum? Logic is self evident and there is no proof without a knowledge of the mechanical process. Main stream only has postulates not mechanics in their standard model. Dark mass energy and a virtual photon is incoherent to describe relativity. Energy appears to be of space and not macro mass. Something has to move electrons in macro mass. So fundamental energy is not of mass but of space. You can chose to believe magic or mechanics. I chose mechanics.

[nilak (OP)]

Concept update:
The idea of properties travelling from one point to another is not correct because the waves would disipate evenly to surrounding point.
Instead, points in space have a fixed amount of properties(At least 2), like electric and magnetic properties. The values of these properties can travel at speed c, but in a different way. For example a static electrical charge value at a point in space creates values on next points similarily to pulling a perfect elastic, infinitely long band, at speed c, with propagation of values also at speed c. But stationary charges do not exist, only slow waves, do. Slow waves are generated by spacetime elasticity. Apparent slow waves can be the effect of waves making closed loops.
The properties of space points overlap and interract with each other creating waves of different behaviours. All matter in the universe is waves of these values. The universe is a field of these values.
This concept now it needs to be consistent witn relativity and the behaviour of electric and magnetic field.

[Alex Dullius Siqueira]

My example with the lower density rock adrifiting on a river was not based on magic nor relativety, just rising a question:
 lets satate that C is the fastest thing on an ordinary field that has certain density and constant acceleration (galaxy/universe)
 Let's assume that Earth for example, does indeed moves at its speed in function of the suns mass bending this very medium...
 Accept that the earth and the sun both have something in common, energy base, great density that is producing mass, this alone force them to cause friction on space, reason why they bend it...
 Acept the fact that if one trows a rock up it will fall back, so there is gravity, but if one trows the rock with enought acceleration it will escape thi very gravity...

 Now thinking about this, at least I, conclude that the rock adquired enought velocity to surpass its own weight, reducing the effect os it's own mass on space for a brief moment, now accepting that as soon as the rock reaches the vaccum of space it will conserve its momentum (but will not gain any speed from its mass), means that the mass is limitating once again the acceleration byt still once again subjecting the dense rock to the medium, so it will not speed up nor slow down on it's own...

 I'm just wondering if "C" is not a speed of it's own, I indded considering the possibility that light is simple "adrifiting" on the medium that is constantly acceleration...
 I do nto accept this, only reviewing it, that "C" is not a trully speed or acceleration from A to B, but simple a "null state", where mass of light reaches a limit that is so insignificant that it is able to adrift from A to B simple by using it's initial push, (at the very moment it was formed, this moment being "C"), all the rest of the path it travels, and during each different dilatation on space it finds, it simple reajust "C" to the state of the medium, what I mean is Light is originated at "C" and light remains at "C", but (C), not being a "speed to achieve" but a state when mass susrpasses the minimum density to be affected by the mediun's density and acceleration...
 I'm not questioning that "C" is not the reason behind the spping of the electron, only wondring that the electron and particles also have reached and exist closely to this limit of mass, enought to almost reach "C", assuming some of the light effects, for this I also only thinking if the particles are sppining just because (individualy) their masses are very closely to "C", this allowing the acceleration to force them to accelerate "individually" on their own...
 Such acceleration of individuall particles, would result in charges and lot of ramifications of different effect, probably when interaction with one another resulting in complex matter and its bounds...

  The photon for being so massless reaches C, it is still carring energy, but probably with not enough energy to cause electromagnetism on it's own, not resonating on masses, only adrifiting at state of "C" from A to B, while everything is being constantly realocated their place in time, including the ray of light, reaching B only by being null...
 Sounds weido but if space is a road, and light is the car, this car posses so lower mass that it can stood still above this road, while the road is doing all the job, also being massless this car would not be subjected by gravity, thus there would be no orientation on its own, spping freely in function of the road... This "massless state as being "C", a state of energy/mass, and not trully a physical acceleration of a massless particle...

 Remember, I do not believe in magic, stick with relativety and matematicians, but never the less at each new discovery the base must be reviwed in all its possibilities, witch only one would be correct, from 100 different options one need to equality consider the other 99 worng awnsers, this can't be interpreted as magic or ignored by convenience, the only thing that we know is that speed of light is C, we name it, we gave a simbolic number, "C" is from relativety, but reconsider what our "C" is, does not change relativety, only reveals that we where simple confused...

It's a static equation, E=mc2, seems to be correct, but if we where to have reached the right awnser blaming the wrong subjects, it could morph into X=YZ2, but, still being the same relativety we know, one should accept this when thinking about the universe...
 
 So I ask, can the speed of light "C", being not a limit speed of space-time, but instead, "C" being a state of mass, both reachable  by possing lower mass or by compensating the own mass by accelerating on time, "C" being adrifiting on space, reasambling to us, that light was indeed accelerating on it's own, when by all means ti was stood still at "C" from A to B?
 
 It's difficult to state when do stick with your last explanations on  "what gravity is", that was the most short acertive resume of what we know that I can remember, my question comes from the fact that nothing will ever move faster in time, than something that is adrifiting on it, like a liquid flow, light would be moving at "C" right becose for being massless it is able to stood still in space, from A to B, it still does exist in time, and for so it is relocated frame to frame along with everything else, but never submited to influence of space...
 In a short sentence, a medium that is accelerating, nothing will ever be more fast on such field that something that can ignore it's flow, nothing should be able to move freely and faster than something that is doing so by being stopped...

That being said, I do believe in relativety, just relativety says how to run the universe, not how the universe runs...

[GoC]

   You are trying to combine the standard model with a totally new one. That is like trying to use a mac program in windows. They are incompatible. You need to throw out one operating system to create a different one. We have a problem with virtual photons where we are trying to propagate bullets (particles) as photons. If we have a matrix (aether type) of operating system relativity has a completely different cause. The cause becomes mechanical rather than postulates.

   If we have a matrix it has to be the reason for electron movement, light speed, magnetism, gravity, weak and strong force. It cannot flow in a direction to move light although it might flow. Because light is constant in every direction. This only leaves one possibility for the propagation of light. c is a spin of particles (dark mass) and the spin of the particles dark energy at c. This is a definition of a different operating system. All observations need to be redefined through this system for mechanical relativity. The standard model has no mechanical basis for relativity. Postulates was a good start but only a start.

What is your basis of a mechanical operating system for relativity?

[Alex Dullius Siqueira]

   You are trying to combine the standard model with a totally new one. That is like trying to use a mac program in windows. They are incompatible. You need to throw out one operating system to create a different one. We have a problem with virtual photons where we are trying to propagate bullets (particles) as photons. If we have a matrix (aether type) of operating system relativity has a completely different cause. The cause becomes mechanical rather than postulates.

   If we have a matrix it has to be the reason for electron movement, light speed, magnetism, gravity, weak and strong force. It cannot flow in a direction to move light although it might flow. Because light is constant in every direction. This only leaves one possibility for the propagation of light. c is a spin of particles (dark mass) and the spin of the particles dark energy at c. This is a definition of a different operating system. All observations need to be redefined through this system for mechanical relativity. The standard model has no mechanical basis for relativity. Postulates was a good start but only a start.

What is your basis of a mechanical operating system for relativity?

 As awnser for your question, I do believe on the same process you describled so well on"what is gravity", it's the logical awnser achieved by observation, rather than postulate...

 I editing the previous awnsers for I usded with write down a lot, so I'll be brief as possible...

 I do believe that light, are not made of single particles (photons)
 But as for alternative perspective of the same E=mc2, I wondering a speed of light that is not provinient form the massless photons traveling at "C", as C being a speed that these photons are able to achieve...
 wondering if "C" is not a massless state, in this case of light, cause light would be like a photography of this very eather,,
 See I do not believe that a ray of light and empty space are completely two different things, in fact I seeing light and space, photons and aether as being the same thing...
 A "C" that is the speed of light cause it is is the maxximum speed wicth the "temporary construction of aether"(photon) can be created...
 For an example as one turn on a light bulb, at the very moment the energy start to be released, aether respond to the energy at "C", and by respond to it I ment, "sort of envelop the energy" with some sort of temporary spiral construction at the minimum level...
 Light energy is being released, not in form o photons, as single real particles, but as contructions of aether itself, around the energy, photon as being not virtual but temporary carrier to transport the information...
 For me we commited a hudge mistaken on Einstein experiments with photonic space fabric, the experiment when he decided that photons where real particles...
 For me if ether is to be real, it would be acting as a carrier of energy, at the moment light occurs, it's already at "C" cause "C" wouldn't be a speed, as for speed of light, but "C" as being the proprierty of being apart from it's inflence by being practicaly massless...
  So I wondering around the same formulas and math, but on the possibilitie that "the photons" never were real particles, but construction like particles made from aether, as conclusion "photon" being a contruction, a shape made of spping around energy, consequently and instantaneously setting particles to spin "individually".
 The individually sppining of such particles, as the electron, only a catalistor to interact with this very aether, forming photons all the time, and each of this constructions"photons, as being the true source of energy of all sorts, all energy comming from space, atomic structure being bounded by the sppining of particles, at the same time, as each photon would be space itself, presented everywhere, on space, inside a bar of metal, inside a rock, inside sun, the space within the particles, within the atoms, all this space being massless aether, photons apearing and desapearing, shaping and reshaping in function of atomic structure...

 It's hard to make it short cause despising following the same E=mc2, and the same constancy of "C", the simple divergion from the photon concept changes a lot of perspective, no much to add cause looking for the ramifications, the math is still the same, just very different perspective, if possible what it would allowed is for someone that can work with formulas and math...

 But all the logic let me to believe into relativity too, maybe jsut subjection, but our eyes evolved to do simple stuff, they can betray us...
 When inside this possibilitie many things change on perspective, as for example, at this moment, one in any dark room, would be already srrownded by "photons" or more specificaly aether, its simple there transmiting spectrun, gravity, and acting normally, but when light is occuring is not that photons are being produced, much less photons that exchange place with other photons, only simple constructions happening at "C" around bits of energy, with pratically no mass, but for effects photons were already against the eyes of the observer, even before, during and after any light was added to the frame...

 As many presume, including I, that when a photon hits a dense atomic structure, the energy is released and the photon is still existing and exchanging place with antother one that get loose, photon as being a construction of the ather as soon as it hits a dense atomic structure the energy is absorbed and deflected, new photons will be created at "C", but new photons nonentless, the carrier that have hitted the wall was simple a shape in function of the energy that was present there, when the energy left, the photon construction simple left to be, return to be what it was...

 Can be only subjection, and part of it is, but there is a persistent tought that light is a state of massless energy that achieved sppining and "C" state... But as for the aether, it is there, except inside macro mass (more specificaly outhercores), the same principle goes for the nucleo of the atoms, the very reason why both exist...

 About models I'm not trully interested in none of both models, but despise my opinion and puting asside alternatives, I agree with you 100% about relativity and observation, is just that there is already milhons of people working on it for years, ok that Einstein was so genius, but talking about math again, the time is taking for a real breaktrough on this area, is not matching, so despise my beliefs one need to wonder if something is not out of place with the correct relativity, something that does not allowed real progress... I understand that experimentation and observation both takes time, but still so many genius outhere, some more than Einstein, altoguh, by some reason, we are still struggling with the same issues...

[nilak (OP)]

 

As you yourself said, "energy shouldbe of space, not mass", there is only one type of energy correct, different wavelengthts, different process, but you agree that there is only one "source of energy", don't you?

 I reading as much as I can to fix the wholes on this alternative perspective, that I trully believe will achieve nothing, but seems logical to explore all possibilities...

 Resuming into a question, do you believe on the possibilitie that "photon" is a temporary contruction of the aether, proving its existence, that are created and dismissed wherever energy is not traveling, occuring?

For gravity, electric and magnetic field, I believe there is only one source. A disturbance in either, electric or magnetic field can create everything. However, I don't know much about the strong force and weak force, only the basics.

Second question: I think, based on my model, that the energy is always traveling but, yes, photons should be a creation of the aether.

An example can be the big bang. To create the disturbance you first need the space (aether). This space initially is a singularity, infinitely small (again  not zero), then you can create a disturbance in the magnetic field as a potential energy. Space itself cannot expand by itself because it is own gravitational effect. The disturbance should make space dilate. Travelling waves, within this space should be at a speed proportional with space density. Now I just realized there is another weird problem. The space singularity must be infinitely big. If it isn't then  you can't create the disturbance because it reaches the space limit before you release it. Hence, the potential energy of space is infinitely big. You need to make the expansion happen, so, probably you need again infinitely big energy the same value and then release it. This example is not clear to me actually, but I'll think about it.

[GoC]

  Alex Siqueira
« on: 13/10/2016 20:37:01 »
  Yes we are not making progress in the area of gravity and magnetism. This is because the main stream standard model does not have anything to work with. They cannot distinguish between mechanics and magic for the motion of the electron.

You and I view the issues very similarly.

 Nilak
« on: Today at 00:31:37 »

I am afraid I do not have faith in the BB. That is magic to my way of thinking. Rather than SR red shift it is more likely to be GR red shift dilation. We can view the GR lens in galaxies. This dilation of space causes dilation red shift from the center of galaxies where 75% of the light is produced. We are 75% out from the center in less GR dilation. So by position we view all galaxies as red shifted.

Fundamental Energy is always spinning and possibly rotating with mass. This is the aura around massive objects. A change in the density of dark mass particles that spin at c. The dark energy from dark mass (fundamental energy).

Light is the stretching of dark mass energy (Aether) when an electron jumps from its rest state. The hf is the jump distance of the electron. The red shift is the dilation in GR or speed in SR. The jump is longer in more dilated space. The jump is longer with speed in SR. There is an equivalence between SR and GR.

[nilak (OP)]

What is your basis of a mechanical operating system for relativity?

The basis is the space density concept with constant t intervals.

Concept update:
There are two possibilities:
1. space density changes close large mass object (that are in fact higher values of this density). It means constant time between each point is space, but where the density is increasing there are more points that occupy the volume. It has the advantage that in between points there cannot be empty space, which is more plausible for my understanding. Also space has a structure, but empty void doesn't. This means beyond the boundaries of this structured space (which can be finite, mathematicaly), there is "absolute nothingness"(see recent topic on this forum). The downside of this concept is that it allows generation of new points from nothing. The new space created has new potential energy, but you need energy to create extra space, so conservation of energy is obeyed.
Constant time intervals vs. constant speed makes more sense since speed in not a fundamental property but time and distance are.
2. Space density doesn't change, but the scale expands. If you draw gridlines, the distance between them is increasing, but also the time between gridlines does, it means constant c, that is in fact GR, nothing new. But the novelty o want to bring here is that space has a structure as an aether made of points and matter is also part of it, not distinct  entities.
This second concept allows absolute nothingness (empty void) between points of space and prohibits the propagation process.
 
So the first model is in my opinion a better description of the reality.
Even in simulation programs when trying to simulate gravity ot whatever you want, you first need to alocate space, before you place the position or information, and you can do it dinamically as well.

Light can travel "through"absolute nothingness (it creates the space) but that is part of the expansion of the universe. But our universe has space already allocated.

I've just found a paper where Einstein also said:
"More careful reflection teaches us however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it."