Alternative theory on the structure of the universe....

Alternative 'picturing' is fine. The significant question is whether your model accounts for all as yet 'unexplainable' data (dark matter for example), and whether it gives rise to new observations.
A point to consider is that anybody with a brain and a bit of imagination can come up with alternative 'pictures', ( using the concept of multidimensionality for example). But this visual speculation is countered by some of the abstract mathematical modelling required to account for the data. 'Picturing' is also criticized by some philosophers (Rorty, for example) who argue that this is a vestage of Western conditioning by the ancient Greek thinkers. Consideration of the status of concepts like 'noticeable object' becomes significant from that pov.

Throw a handful of pebbles in a pond - Then spend 10hrs watching 'Nassim Haramein' on youtube.
All hidden will be revealed.

The typical representation of a "fabric of spacetime" is a colloquial expression of a mathematical model. It is more accurately expressed as a dimensional array rather than a fabric.

We can’t perform calculations without a concept on which to perform them. Structural engineers and architects are often in conflict as the architect stretches his imagination beyond that which the structural engineer is comfortable. However, one fact is true: it’s possible to feel when a theory is correct. For example, if I told you your house was able to rest on a timber beam 300mm wide x 25mm thick resting on two supports at a distance twice the width of your house, most people would not need to do the maths to ‘feel’ this is untrue. If I then told you your house could sit on a reinforced concrete slab 2 metres thick and 2 metres wider than your house, you would instantly know that this is possible, without maths.
Wherever we are in the world, we are all falling towards the centre of the earth (or the centre of mass), only stopping when some force or thing intervenes. If we stand on the earths crust, travel in a plane, or head into space then we are preventing or being prevented from allowing this force to make us fall towards its centre. We have to be 'parallel' to the force, if we move onto a hill on the earths surface we begin to be drawn towards the centre again. So, if we are all moving toward this centre of mass (earth), that has an escape velocity and neighbouring masses have the same principle, then there must be a curve between the two masses. If we then look at the fact that we neighbour more than one mass, there must be numerous curves with a point where space ceases to expand and as it begins its journey into the centre of then next mass. With varying mass, diameter, density etc, of each mass, the curve in all directions emanating from the centre of each mass, this would form a complex structure. The question is, would this form some sort of a supportive or connective structure? If so, is the universe more stable than we believe. Looking at it as Riemann surface /Hausdorff space sort of helps on visualization.
The concept of being inside a lift that is falling and we are unaware its falling is great, but it must be falling to the centre of the earth as we fall from the southern hemisphere ‘upwards’ and the norther hemisphere ‘downward’ if we accept upward and downward exist. This must be so and this is the point at which we will stop falling. So, this lift is not (can not) be in constant freefall.
Does the force of a hurricane connect all things in its path as they all move in the same direction from the centre of the force? All weather systems are connected to each other as one front blends into another. We could believe we are in a storm and someone else is not so the whole thing is unstable, but If we stood back, it is actually one global weather system.

This paragraph implies that you are advocating a search for 'an ideal vantage point'. I suggest (a) that that is a futile quest and (b) ''visualization' from vantage points is no longer the basis for scientific paradigms...rather it lies in the coherence of the mathematical model. That's where your architect versus builder analogy breaks down.
You only need consider statements about QM such as ...'whatever can happen, does happen'....to understand where the 'logic of pictures' or 'the law, in logic, of the excluded middle', has been superceded.

Space fabric may just not be that complicated. A curve of gravity leaves earth on every angle at 360 altering to match the curve of a neighbouring mass. It repeats this for each mass within its interaction. Why do we need matter between these forces? The interaction would give a support structure to the universe. Matter could pass positively and negatively along this path, light could take a shorter path within it, lack of matter could exist within the structure - dark matter. The arc out of a black hole may just be so immense (due to its size and gravitational force) as it arcs to match us (earth) that we just don't get to see the reflection. We are not looking into a hole, we are looking at the beginning of a gravitational arc that, as it bends to meet our gravitational arc, stretches beyond what we cant comprehend. The event horizon theory is just a theory. Maybe its not so sinister, and we don't turn into spaghetti, its just a very, very, very... steep arc, .

We need matter - Because it 'matters'.
Everything matters.
It is what it is.

There is NO 'Nothing'.

Define 'Matter', please?

Without 'your' perspective, I have only mine (closeted).

When we scuba dive, air compresses in our lungs, water creates and replaces the volume created. In space as pressure decreases, nothing there to take up the space, therefore, logically, maybe dark matter is nothing. The universe is still held together by gravitational force. We're not talking 'nothing', we're just talking less 'something' than we'd expect.

Let me put this another way. Imagine two girls swinging a skipping rope in an arc to match one another. As it leaves one to reach the other it expands, but there is still nothing inside the arc. If a ship drew a straight line and tried to sail along it, the ship would not achieve the straight line, that took some comprehending down the years when we thought the world was flat. The reason we look for dark matter is because we believe the 'unaccounted space' exists. But maybe it doesn't. Through simple astrodynamics we can establish that if we accelerate when we are directly opposite the target we wish to reach, we will crash into earth. We see a direct volume between us and a target, because that is how we are trained to think. Ok so what if, going back to the skipping rope, nothing actually exists within it. That's the elusive dark matter, that 'space' actually isn't there. Matter simply expands from one planet to the next along the 'skipping rope' path, expanding but leaving an 85% void. It just isn't there. we think it should be because we think a volume exists between us and another object like a pipe, because that makes sense, but it just isn't there. All that is there is arcs expanding and compressing between masses. No one can explain dark matter, this would fully explain it. Its not there, because that space isn't there.

So - What's your 'theory'?

You'll hate this. It solves dark matter, black holes and string theory, so far, I think. So lets kick this of with arcs from mass to mass, or between masses. The larger the mass, the larger the arc. So starting with black holes, we're not looking straight at a hole, we're looking down a hole along a gravity arc, so deep that we see night, appearing as though nothing will escape. Singularity is a concept based looking at it, we are not. In the arc, space time becomes easy to represent, but xyz becomes the problem. We'd have to redefine our thinking like flat earth / round earth. Spaces don't exist between gravity arcs, because they don't need to, so a shape not like a box occurs. Continuity is there, but just bent beyond a shape we can want to believe. We know as a + leaves the earth at that exact moment on the arc a - leaves the gravitation force its reaching out to. Dark matter is a space that doesn't exist, we only think it exists because of the shape we see continuity. We think time shape is hard to comprehend but its xyz that's misleading us. Mass arcs to mass and distorts to a shape we cant imagine.

Andy.
Can we break this down into something workable, please?
Stage 1.
Your quote: "You'll hate this"

You don't know me at any level that allows you to determine how I will 'feel' (hate) about, what maybe Stage 2 might arise from.

And I don't 'hate' Ever (Just promotes negativity and stress) upon the 'hater'.
Anger only harms the angry.

So, please, do away with unnecessary assumptions and lay out your proposal.... steadily..... One step at a time.

Apologies, your right I shouldn't presume. Starting point is gravity, ok so it leaves the centre of mass, then what, just distorts into space? No, it arcs into an adjoining mass. A greater mass and smaller would have to arc to meet, mass is connected or why do we have orbit. So point one, if we accept mass is connected, emanating from small to large, each dominating into micro macro relationships, the arc between simple masses would present the opportunity for visibility between reasonably proportioned masses. At this point realist, we're not looking directly at something, but into its arc. When look at a supper massive black hole we think its absorbing everything, its not, we're looking into a supper massive arc. That's point one.

Gravity doesn't exist.
Neither do the 'strong' force, 'weak' force, up, down, lucky, or charm principles.
It's all a crock of crap - And 'deadended' purposely.

Would you like a link to truth - Before we continue?