GR tells us that space is in a sense malleable. It can be stretched and compressed, bent, or it can ripple. Intuitively one might think that if we take a certain region in space, say a region defined by the relative distances between a series of celestial objects, if the space in that region was "stretched" (say for example due to the pull of hugely massive external structures pulling outwards) the "density of space" in that region would be smaller than normal, than if the stretching by those massive external structures was not present. Conversely, if that same region was "compressed" or "squeezed" due to a huge presence of matter inside it (without any alteration of the volume of that region, the objects which define it remain at exactly the same distances from each other), the "density of space" in that region would be high, it would contain "squeezed space". In other words, a certain region of space might consist of highly stretched space or of highly squeezed space. The "space density" in that region would be different in both examples. Perhaps if we consider dark energy to be an intrinsic property of space, we might measure that that same region displays a different amount or rate of tendency to expand. The highly squeezed, "high space density" scenario would display more tendency to expansion than the "low space density, stretched space" scenario? Or if we consider virtual particles to be a property of space (I know most will say they are not) we might notice that the "squeezed space" region produces a higher number of them than when the same region is being "stretched space". Does this make any sense? That would seem to regard space as some physical medium, a sort of aether in a sense, a sort of "cosmic chewing gum medium". I know this is not the way modern science regards space, the aether view was discarded long ago, but I would like some comments on the subject, why the view I described is wrong. Thanks!