What's the Fabric of space made out of?

Your post in my opinion is very accurate indeed, if you were to conjure any 'fabric' to space then it is energy [as EMR] the 'space between the stars [which are themselves energy in 'solid' form] is full of EMR. When you hear or read that space is 'bent' around a gravitational body such as a star so the light 'curves' in space, what they actually mean is that one form of energy [gravity] has acted upon another form of energy [light].We often forget to include this fact when talking to those interested in learning more about Relativity and the result is the shocking idea is formed in many minds that there is some 'other' substance out there called 'space', there isn't, there is energy and it is constantly being swayed by other energy that forces into performing the things we see like light bending around a large star.The same 'misconstruction' is made of time, as if it had some substance that might be subject to the influence of man, there is no 'reverse' for time because events unfold 'after' one another not 'before'.Folding a sheet of paper a number of times shows a forward processional series of events, refolding the piece of paper no matter how carefully we re-trace our steps will still be a forward procession of events.Time is entirely a 'one-way street' it is a measure of the gaps between events, it has no substance.Space-time is a combination of those terms, it simply represents the procession of energy acting upon energy at various intervals relative to your point in space.For the most part that view is from here on Earth and we are sitting on small planet with just enough gravity to keep us in place without crushing us and through a thin veil of atmosphere that sustains us, our 'advantage' is that thanks to that huge soft boiled cauliflower in that hard shell on your shoulders we can 'step' outside our safe haven and take a bigger view, Einstein is the most famous of our kind that did this within the mind and Neil Armstrong is the most famous of the very few that have had the best 'long view' to date in person.

I see the Cosmos as just energy, all of it.The bits we see as objects are just energy 'stored' in the form of mass, somethings we see are just one aspect of energy making or forcing another aspect of energy move under its influence, the areas we see as 'empty' space is full of another aspect of energy conveying what all those other aspects of energy are doing.This is the fundamentally correct way to view the Cosmos.The only exception to all this is gravitation [not gravity] gravitation is not bound by the upper limit of the speed of light.When we stop blinkering ourselves and look for the 'gravity particle' at above the speed of light we will find it, but at the moment we can't even see the obvious clues to its existence in things like the Casimir 'parallel plate' Effect, the 'haze' of the proton circling the nucleus of an atom, the two slit phenomenon and Einsteins 'spooky action at a distance' all are fundamental examples of an FTL particles presence in the Cosmos.

Energy in the form of EMR.
Without a doubt, the only thing that clearly defines the cosmos from nothing IS energy.
Bound EMR.
Perhaps you think YOU understand what the parallel plate phenomena is but I'm pretty sure you are wrong.

Energy is motion.
Your calcs are simply made to fit what was previously viewed, you don't have an explanation, you have a working formula, that formula does not give an understanding of any kind as to what mechanism gives rise to the effect, the best you can manage is virtual particles which is a dreadful cop out for the simple truth of having finally to accept FTL phenomena at work.I have a formula for the combustion of gasoline, it does not help me at all in understanding how the car moves does it? It doesn't explain enough, just as your formula does not explain enough.I can pretty accurately guess from formulae how that mythical car might work, as it burns fuel, but it simply does not give the insight into what mechanism is at work to turn the wheels, in fact it won't even explain the wheels.Formulae are good, but they remain a castrated form of knowledge unless they can be related to the underlying nuts and bolts, virtual particles are a joke, but the as yet many still cannot see the joke of the emperors new clothes.

Energy is fundamentally motion, the rather banal "energy is the ability to do work" doesn't cut it anymore.No motion = no energyKinetic energy is relative time-frame motion.At its most basic energy is only motion and motion of any kind is energy, it is had to accept for some I know, but to deny this is just flying in the face of reality.EMR is the purest/simplest/basic form of motion it is equally the purest/simplest/basic form of energy.I explain, you contradict without explanation. If I am wrong explain how, perhaps you can name an energy that has no motion, that would be a first!

No, I have not mixed my words, what we call gravity is the light speed aspect of the true force behind gravitation which through the action of continual exchange between particles of EMR at supra-light speed gives us the instantaneous gravity acceleration we experience on this planet.We may give the FTL Gravitational Exchange phenomena the name 'gravitons' at some point in the future but for the time being 'gravitons' are something thought to be entirely light-speed limited and won't ever be found to be fundamental to anything.

No, energy exists AS space!It is what space IS.

...and therefore within the black hole you think that matter, all matter suddenly becomes stagnant?Protons no longer revolve a nucleus?There is no swirl within as the matter spears into the blackness?You cannot be wronger if you tried.If it is 'bullshit' as you quaintly say it is, then dismissing this is simple, show me motion without energy or vice versa.Do it, cut the rhetoric, show your Royal Flush, I reckon it will turn out a busted flush, but I will happily walk away without a murmur if you do it.

Because it is rather like saying an aeroplane has the capacity to fly, it is correct, but does not adequately cover aeronautics does it!Edited by V-Bird, : No reason given.

Bosonic fields have motion, continual motion!What you, and most others it must be said, believe to be a quantum field is in fact a further manifestation of FTL gravitational exchange, Einstein was wedded to there being no violation of SoL in his SR theories, he was wrong, and dead-ended himself as a result.ALL quantum fields are merely a bit of artifice to keep the train on the track.It is the exchange of gravitation that means that paired instantaneous effects can be explained at no matter what distance separates them.Edited by V-Bird, : No reason given.