No, you're just completely ignorant of the physics. Space and time are inherently related, even in something as rudimentary as speed, where speed = distance/time. You can't derive a speed without both a measure in space and a measure in time. And the difference in the rate of time due to elevation and speed has been repeatedly verified by experiment:
Newly developed optical clocks are so precise that they register the passage of time differently at elevations of just a few dozen centimeters or velocities of a few meters per second
https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...-dilation/
That's not large scale. But from the trash you spew, I can only assume you deny such science. "Open-minded" is a crackpot excuse for pure woo. Macro physics moved on from an absolute time once Einstein's predictions proved far more accurate than Newton's. The number of times you compare standard, well-tested physics to God proves you're only a crackpot who simply doesn't understand the physics. Yes, anything far enough beyond your comprehension could appear to be magic, but it's only willful ignorance that keeps you from actually learning it. I don't really give two craps what you've never heard anyone say, as it's pretty clear you haven't been able to digest much of what you've heard at all.
Einstein's use of the description "aether" never corresponded to the classical concept. He only borrowed the term to express that spacetime had a geometry.
The only similarity of this relativistic aether concept with the classical aether models lies in the presence of physical properties in space, which can be identified through geodesics. As historians such as John Stachel argue, Einstein's views on the "new aether" are not in conflict with his abandonment of the aether in 1905. As Einstein himself pointed out, no "substance" and no state of motion can be attributed to that new aether. Einstein's use of the word "aether" found little support in the scientific community, and played no role in the continuing development of modern physics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminifero...the_aether
And again, you keep saying "space" where the modern physics of gravity requires spacetime. You really need to learn some basic physics before you try to rewrite it or listen to crackpots who are the blind leading the blind.
Here's an epiphany for you.
Physics is not ontology. Ontology is a branch of philosophy because ontological questions cannot be answered by the scientific method. Pretending they can be is a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. Your physics teacher not having the patience to deal with your special brand of unscientific woo is exactly how science is supposed to work. Until you have experimental evidence to support your little proposals, it's a complete waste of everyone's time.
No one in physics has ever called space and time "one interchangeable dimension". Physics definitions are practical descriptions, nothing more. They are descriptions of observations, not ontological deep dives for ultimate "truth", which are the domain of philosophy. The simple answers are that space is an extent and time is a duration. Neither is "made of" anything but arbitrarily defined units of extent and duration. Because when "matter tells spacetime how to curve and spacetime tells matter how to move" there is no chicken and egg problem. Matter is the source. The extent of space and duration of time are only ever measured by and relative to matter.
But go ahead, try explaining these results without a Lorentz invariant spacetime:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...-dilation/