J.C.MacSwell

I thought that was your position. I do not agree with it but I can see that it is logically consistent based on your assumptions (and lack of assumptions in certain areas)

Another victory for the Steady State Theory!

It is assumed to be in the direction of the velocity, and even then only marginally as it will change again as any acceleration takes place.

I think what you mean by this is correct.

You do not believe in any "fabric" of space? Is this correct? If it is correct then what do you perceive to prevent light from travelling (say) two light years in one years duration? Maybe a better way of putting it is: What is it that does not allow the light to arrive earlier? What is it that makes it a 2 light year distance instead of just one? You seem to be sure that it is nothing substantial. I cannot prove that it is. But I doubt that you can prove that it is not. Even in principle.

Agreed In principle it's quite easy. Location A (1,2,3) Location B (4,5,6) In practice see above, I agree with you, I'm sure you don't believe the speed of light is infinite.

I think your conclusion is wrong and one can equal two using the assumptions you proposed.

Why is space not a "thing"? Is space-time a thing?

Is self awareness really necessary? Given an infinite Universe there will be infinite monkeys banging on typewriters but also infinite primates (us) doing just what we are doing simply because it is possible. Now if this is one of those infinite Earths that is identical to this one and has only one self aware primate then I'm sorry to tell you that it is me and not you.

Wouldn't that be especially true?

Both

So in this model the mass absorbtion of space creates curvature as well?

How would orbits work in your model?

Has anyone done any analysis of the gas and drawn any conclusions about the monsters diet?