You started out by arguing that good science is actually a form of philosophical inquiry. I don't think this is a completely absurd notion, although I do think it is wrong. I was pushing back on your original argument by pointing out the science is based on ideas that are objectively testable and repeatable, something distinctly different from philosophy.
Now you have fallen into the trap of arguing bad science from some fringe guy you found on the internet (I did check). It isn't science. Science (unlike philosophy) provides objectively testable facts meaning that statements in science are objectively right or wrong.
If you are arguing that the "aether" as defined by philsophers and disproved in the late 1800s now exists, you are objectively wrong. I can point out multiple experiments since Michelson Morley that prove you are wrong.
If you are simply redefining the term "aether" so some absurd concept to win an argument, I can't say you are wrong (because terms with no set definition have no meaning and can't be tested)... but I can say you are being silly.