done , thanks , lock

What is this "fabric" of which you speak? Space time is simply the 4 dimensional view of the universe encapsulating the three familiar spatial dimensions and the 4th dimension of time. The 3 spatial dimensions are expanding, but the space time "fabric" is not a physical structure in the way that you are imagining it. Nothing physical is being created or stretched.

could the wourd "fabric" be a theoretical term for the structure of things in space, space is empty so there is only nothiness inbetween objects like stars, planets and galaxies, so fabric could be a incorrect term to use to describe the nothiness in space.

Space is not empty. If there were nothing in space between objects they would be stuck to and touching each other. Just like when you suck out all the air from a sucktion cup, The meaning of : space is empty and nothing (=no thing) is there means that no material thing is there ( although I would even debate that ) but there are waves and radiations exist there. For example gravitational forces which pull or repell planets around the Sun, or forces coming from the Sun to planets.

Space is not empty. If there were nothing in space between objects they would be stuck to and touching each other. Just like when you suck out all the air from a sucktion cup, The meaning of : space is empty and nothing (=no thing) is there means that no material thing is there ( although I would even debate that ) but there are waves and radiations exist there. For example gravitational forces which pull or repell planets around the Sun, or forces coming from the Sun to planets.

Whether or not spacetime constitutes some kind of structure or fabric strikes me as being a philosophical question. Certainly it's treated as if it's a manifold that can be shaped, stretched, and squeezed; it isn't a passive background in which things happen (as space and time were for Newton) but rather an active participant in those processes. What does that imply about it's nature? That's one to think about, I suppose.

i think voidness would be a more accurate word than nothingness.