Ether 01

By the end of the 19th century, everyone was convinced that all space was filled with a medium which they called the ether (or aether).
This ether had to explain all action at a distance, ie. magnetism, electricity, light and gravity and it was the ultimate building block of matter.

Today action at a distance is "explained" through fields, for example, a magnetic field, an electric field etc. But these "explanations" are circular and therefore do not explain anything. A field is a mathematical description, not an explanation for these forces. Yet in our everyday speech, they play the role of an explanation.

We see a similar thing when we talk about the properties of space or of "the vacuum". The vacuum cannot have properties because properties need a carrier and the vacuum signifies the absence of such carriers. The vacuum cannot have a colour, a weight, a temperature etc. and neither can it have an electrical permittivity nor magnetic permeability.
And because it cannot have these properties, light cannot pass through it.
The conclusion that space needs an ether for light to pass through it is as valid today as it was back then.

While the concept of an ether is strongly opposed by modern scientists for reasons rooted in relativity, it seems that these people forget that:

• Relativity is based on Maxwell's work which was based on the existence of the ether
• Einstein, the father of relativity, said in a lecture in 1920: 

"We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

When it comes to relativity, it is often said that since relativity is a proven fact, there can be no ether. What do these people forget?
They forget that relativistic evidence almost exclusively refers to evidence in favour of the Lorentz transformations. These Lorentz transformations were originally derived by Lorentz based on the existence of an ether.

The Michelson-Morley experiment is also frequently mentioned as evidence against an ether. These people seem to forget that:

• One of the functions of the ether was to convey forces. As the Earth is moving around the Sun, there must be a force that makes the Earth do this. The ether as the conveyor of this force must, therefore, drag the Earth along. This is the exact opposite of the proposed ether-drag theory, in which the Earth drags the ether along. A ridiculous theory based on nothing.
• The zero result has been fully explained by Lorentz and his Lorentz transformations which have been proven over and over again. 
• The fact that gravitational waves have been detected by the LIGO detector (a giant version of the Michelson-Morley experiment) proofs beyond a shadow of a doubt that these waves travel through a medium. For if the space-time continuum would have been distorted, as these scientists assume, everything therein would be equally distorted and therefore these waves would be undetectable. 

Here are some Wiki-links for those who wish to delve deeper:
Aether (classical element)
Aether theories 
Luminiferous aether