I know where you are coming from, and on the surface, my model is quite alternative. I use a concept of the "wave energy density of space" as part of a mechanistic explanation for what the mainstream model calls the curvature of spacetime. I understand curvature to be mathematically quantified but not explained mechanistically. Is that still true? Relativity, in regard to motion between two frames, is very much a part of my version, but what you call Lorentz transformation is replaced by the difference in the velocity of light at different wave energy densities, meaning that light will not cover the same distance in a given time when the wave energy density differs. Relavite motion causes a difference in the local wave energy density of the two frames. The wave energy density model invokes a background in all space composed of wave energy traveling at the local speed of light from all directions, in all places. The wave fronts have a moving presence; a location in space at all times. In many respects, our present concept of the cosmic microwave background has some similarities to that concept. It is not the same as invoking absoute space, but it invokes a background of wave energy coming and going in all directions, at all points in space. I have mentioned that the source of the wave energy that is traversing space is from matter; particles, and objects composed of particles. Also, I mentioned the concept that the presence of matter is sustained by inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy, and the out flow from matter is the wave energy that fills all space. It is also the inflowing wave energy to other particles and objects. That is a concept that is only partially recognized in GR. It is recognized to the extent that the predicted gravitational waves of GR have been detected. My concept is simply that every particle and object emits those gravitational waves, but they are usually of such low energy that they cannot be detected by interferometers. It is also worth mentioning that particles and objects "contain" wave energy at vastly higher densities than the space between them. The idea is that when the inflowing wave energy enters the particle space, its velocity is greatly slowed relative to its velocity in open space because of the high wave energy density within particles. That change in velocity is variable, relative to the local wave energy density, so particles can contain more energy when they are accelerated relative to the background, and to each other. That is because when there is relative motion, the inflow becomes more directional. Directional inflow increases its energy relative to energy from any other direction because wave energy always has location and relative velocity. That concept is similar to how objects moving relative to the CMBR will heat up. I go into speculating and hypothesizing about the "how" of the wave energy density model in order to begin the conversation about the mechanics at the micro level. But note that within the same model, I address the mechanics at the macro level as well; macro being in terms of massive objects composed of large numbers of particles, and of galaxies and Big Bang arenas, as opposed to particles themselves. The mechanics are strikingly similar at both levels, which I have mentioned a few times. I have also mentioned that there is a version of quantum gravity in the model and have explained how it works, invoking the momentary high energy spots at the convergence of gravitational energy waves. That has not been acknowledged in our discussion, so it must be viewed to have no merit. If you maintain that there is no merit to the idea that there is a variable wave energy density in space, and that the local wave energy density governs the velocity of light and gravitational waves through space, you might want to say so, lol. I almost remember you agreeing with that concept in regard to the rate that identical clocks measure the passing of time at different rates in different wave energy density environments. In any respect, I have alternatives to what you invoke, and to say the alternatives contradict your view isn't giving me much to go on, other than stimulating me to repeat myself; which is boring, I know.