Much of science takes us in directions that go against our intuitions. Galileo fought with the church over the idea that the earth moved. Partly this was because a literal interpretation of Joshua implied that it was the sun that moved - not the earth. Secondly, all our intuitions say that it is the earth that is at rest. However, almost everyone - including the church - now accepts that the earth moves and that passage in Joshua need not be taken literally.
Einstein grappled with the odd notion that light appeared to travel at the same speed no matter what the speed of the observer. This is a VERY counter-inutitive idea but its solution led to the theory of relativity - and these were eventually confirmed. The theories of relativity led to yet more counter-intuitive ideas: the concept of black holes resulting from the collapse of large stars. The evidence for these is now quite strong.
Relatively leads to a notion that time and space are fundamentally linked. The collapse of space leads to collapse of time. Few people have an intuition for such an idea: how can time collapse?
And some of these ideas - along with evidence of an expanding universe, lead a Belgium priest to the idea that the universe had a beginning. As I mentioned elsewhere, the term "Big Bang" was coined by the atheist Fred Hoyle to mock the concept which he saw as a 'Christian' theory. However, the multiple lines of evidence for the "Big Bang" have convinced most of the scientific community despite the religious overtones.
However, any new theory is allowed if it can explain the available data better than the current theory. But it takes serious work to demonstrate that your theory does a better job. Simply noting that the current theory seems counter-intuitive will not have much impact.
I have read a simplified version of the ToR, since I do not know the equations it is based on. I understand it from a philosophical view, and one can use illustrations to express some of it's ideas. However, can you provide me with experimental confirmation of the "fabric" caused by time and space, other than it is a philosophical idea put into mathematical equations? Saying that gravity is proof is an arbitrary assertion.
To me time is a measurement, like length. Length is real, but is a spatial concept, not a fabric, nor is it a thread. I can not hold length in my hand, or view it. But I can express it by numbers, and make it comparitive to other lengths. It is a mental concept that helps me to understand distance and depth. Time is the same way--I can't hold a second in my hand, because it's a concept of sequential existance, passage of events, or non events, or consciousness of a state of being that begins and will end.
Therefore if I multiply something that is non physical, though it can be represented by numbers, it's sum will be also non-physical. If length has no inherant substance or energy, why would one of it's sums, no matter what it is multiplied by, be matter or energy? And if time and space (length, width, height, depth) are not innately physical, why would they be the cause of any matter or energy?