[pasala (OP)]

As  per Einstein, "Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable;"

As per General relativity, “matter tells space time how to curve and curved space time tells matter how to move”.

In my view, Einstein laid the foundation of modern theory of  Aether through General relativity.

Ok, let us presume that we have placed huge mass such as Earth at its place.  Space time is not empty it is completely filled with aether.  In fact there is no place for Earth.  It has to make room or place in aether and pushes aside Aether particles.  It is like a pebble in water pond.  There is no place for pebble in water, it pushes aside water particles and makes its own place.  It clearly tells us that:
01  Aether is elastic, smooth can be pulled and pushed.
02  Present thinking that Earth’s movement is ride on aether is wrong.
03  Earth dip or immerse in aether, clearly tells that it is not rigid.
04  Michelson-Morley experiment is true only when Earth’s movement is a ride on ether.

How curved space tells mass to move:
Luminiferous aether or ether was the postulated medium for the propagation of light. It was invoked to explain the ability of the apparently wave-based light to propagate through empty space, something that waves should not be able to do.

As per New Aether:
01  It is not light bearing, but light causing aether.
02  There is  no separate medium to transport light waves.

Ok, suppose certain amount of energy is released from Sun due to nuclear fission.  Please remember that space is completely filled with aether.  As said by Descartes, there is no place for new particle in the space it can only move to the place as vacated by other particle.  In turn it creates pressure on the existing aether particles.  Suppose “X” particle is released from an atom of Sun,  it cannot go directly.  It only creates pressure / force on the immediate particle.  This chain reaction continues till the last particle tagged to it on Earth reacts.

So, moving particles creates wave like impact on the curved space of Earth.  A part of the impact is also passed on to the Earth.  Particles in the curved space gets momentum.  In turn it drags the Earth. 

This is the way curved space tells mass how to move.

Please share your ideas / views to improve this. 

[Origin]

You have made a series of assertions without any evidence backing up those assertions.  An assertion made without evidence can be dismissed.

[pasala (OP)]

You have made a series of assertions without any evidence backing up those assertions.  An assertion made without evidence can be dismissed.

ok, thank you.  surely it is assertion, but based on G R.  In future I will try to avoid them. 

[Colin2B]

According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable;"

That is incorrect, GR (and SR) work without assuming the existence of an ether.

Can you please describe an experiment that can detect the ether.

[paul cotter]

There is no proof or disproof of the existence of "aether". ∴ it has no place in science.

[alancalverd]

The disproof is that, whatever properties you assign to it turn out to be inconsistent with experiment. Same as God.

[paul cotter]

The existence or nonexistence of God is similarly unprovable. However, on the basis of causality and most certainly NOT religious faith, I strongly believe there is an intelligence behind the creation/operation of this universe, call it what you may.

[pasala (OP)]

According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable;"

That is incorrect, GR (and SR) work without assuming the existence of an ether.

Can you please describe an experiment that can detect the ether.

Well that is true.  When GR was introduced, Lorentz wrote a letter to Einstein, with GR you have reintroduced Aether.  In his reply Einstein did not ruled out, but said that it is "New aether".   Mine assertion is based on that only. 

Suppose if we assume that there is aether throughout the universe.   Present thinking is that, Earth's movement is a ride on aether.  As assumed by General relativity mass curves or distorts space time around it.  So, if aether is present, mass distorts it.  We are assuming it as space fabric, but it is not clear what this fabric is.  So, I had taken this aether. 

If Earth's movement is a ride on ether, than Michelson Morley experiment is correct.  In case, if mass dips in ether, it is different thing and Michelson Morley experiment is completely wrong. 

Well mine knowledge is limited, help me out to improve this.

[pasala (OP)]

The existence or nonexistence of God is similarly unprovable. However, on the basis of causality and most certainly NOT religious faith, I strongly believe there is an intelligence behind the creation/operation of this universe, call it what you may.

You are correct.  But in my view, ether was buried alive. 

[pasala (OP)]

The disproof is that, whatever properties you assign to it turn out to be inconsistent with experiment. Same as God.

Yeah, it is very difficult to prove it.  Yet i am making simple attempt.  Have you read Maxwell, "physical lines of force".   Directly or indirectly ether is present in it.

[Bored chemist]

If you name your pet cat as "Aether" then you can say the aether exists.
But it doesn't tell you anything about physics.
If you name  "lines of force" as "Aether" then you can say the aether exists.
But it doesn't tell you anything about physics.

[pasala (OP)]

If you name your pet cat as "Aether" then you can say the aether exists.
But it doesn't tell you anything about physics.
If you name  "lines of force" as "Aether" then you can say the aether exists.
But it doesn't tell you anything about physics.

Ok, the speed of light in vacuum is 299,792,458 metres per second.  By creating vacuum, we are taking away different particles, that are present in the air.  Basic idea of aether is that, light waves needs a medium to propagate. 

Since light travels with maximum speed in vacuum, we came to a conclusion that light needs no medium.  Does this particles present in air aiding light.  Actually, an atom absorbs a photon and releases electrons.   

In other words we are only removing obstacles.  Naturally, light travels with maximum  speed as there are no obstacles. 

It is incorrect, if we say that, by creating vacuum, we are taking away or removing the aether or the medium that is aiding or helping in propagation of light.

In specific terms, we don't know what exactly this aether is?.  Light is having an important quality of particle, wave duality.  Ok, suppose, let us assume that, by creating vacuum we have removed particles that are aiding light.  In fact, I don't think we are having that much technology, if that is true, world might be in different shape.  In such case, it is different vacuum. 

As per de broglie hypothesis, all matter exhibits the quality of wave nature.  That is true.  But see the difference, as long as the electrons are in a cable, wave like quality is very limited.  If so, there is no need for any electric bulb.  It is only after coming out  into space, they exhibits wave like quality. 

I am not finding fault with de broglie hypothesis.  It is perfectly correct.  But its application is far limited.  When a cable is charged, there is no light, it is only when they are sent through bulb, electrons exhibits wave like quality.

Electric bulb, mechanical devise used by us to create light.  Here there are two parts:
01  Electric bulb
02  Light
As long as the  electrons are spread in electric bulb, their wave nature is far limited.  It is only after coming out into space, they exhibits real wave nature.

Notice the difference.  There is something in the space that is aiding or improving the wave nature of particles. 

It clearly tells us that aether is not a medium that is aiding in propagation of light, but it is a part of light.  It is aiding in the "wave nature of light".  In its absence, as assumed by de broglie, particles can show or exhibit original wave quality, which is insufficient to give you any light.

Please help me in this process.

[Bored chemist]

In specific terms, we don't know what exactly this aether is?

In practical terms, it is imaginary.

[Origin]

Ok, the speed of light in vacuum is 299,792,458 metres per second.  By creating vacuum, we are taking away different particles, that are present in the air.  Basic idea of aether is that, light waves needs a medium to propagate.

Correct.

Since light travels with maximum speed in vacuum, we came to a conclusion that light needs no medium.

That is incorrect.  The idea was that a luminous ether exists in a vacuum.  Subsequent theory and experimentation have shown that there is no ether and that EM wave do not propagate through a medium, so the idea of an ether was abandoned.

Does this particles present in air aiding light.

That sentence does not make any sense.

Actually, an atom absorbs a photon and releases electrons.

That is not correct as a general statement.  Typically if light is absorbed by an electron in an atom the electron will jump to a higher energy state - it will not be ejected from the atom.  If the incident photon has a high enough energy and is absorbed by an electron, the electron can be ejected from the atom.

In other words we are only removing obstacles.  Naturally, light travels with maximum  speed as there are no obstacles. 

Correct light moves at the max speed, c, in a vacuum.

It is incorrect, if we say that, by creating vacuum, we are taking away or removing the aether or the medium that is aiding or helping in propagation of light.

That is correct, it would be wrong to talk about a medium or ether when talking about the propagation of EM radiation.

In specific terms, we don't know what exactly this aether is?

We know exactly what the aether is.  It is a hypothesized medium that light propagates through.  The aether was hypothesized to have the properties of being incredibly dense and rigid and at the same time being undetectable.  We also know that this hypothesis is wrong since it has been falsified.
 

[pasala (OP)]

Whatever said by you is 100 per cent correct.  It is very difficult to prove aether.  Some of the great scientists such as Lorentz failed to get any result.  Yet, still we are running after, because every great scientists proclaimed that there is something in the space. 

General relativity uses the word "space fabric".  What this space fabric is.  Suppose if space is empty, how this fabric came into existence.  What does this fabric consists.  Huge masses warps the  space fabric around them.  See, Gravity is also distortion of space time.  So, clearly, it gives an idea that there is something in the space, whatever name we assign to it.

In fact GR is a great idea from a great mind.  Yet, as said by Lorentz, there is ether and it is referred indirectly. 

[Bored chemist]

Some of the great scientists such as Lorentz failed to get any result. 

No.
They got a result.
The result was "there is no ether".

[pasala (OP)]

Some of the great scientists such as Lorentz failed to get any result. 

No.
They got a result.
The result was "there is no ether".

It he had so, science will be in different shape. 

[pasala (OP)]

Well, it  is known fact that every magnet has a north pole and a south pole. If we place unlike poles together causes them to attract.  But, if  two like poles are placed together. repel each other.

Descartes has got a big doubt, how these magnets identify a like and unlike poles.  He assumed that there is an invisible field with which these magnets are interacting and identifying it.     

This is not a feature or quality of magnets.

Space is not empty and it is completely filled with particles.   It is completely wrong to say that magnet creates its field.

As assumed by Descartes, there is no place for magnet, like ordinary matter, it has to create its own.  It pushes ether particles in the space.  Due to attraction, more particles are attracted towards the magnet.  So, it results in magnetic field. 

Magnet  =   magnetic field (draws particles from space).

So, it clearly tells us that, ether or Luminiferous ether or light bearing ether is not hardest substance like steel.  Further it also clearly tells us that there is direct relationship between magnet and aether. 

Attraction of particles towards magnet clearly tells us that ether is spread every where in the space.  It also gives us an idea that ether is not a separate substance or medium. 

Magnetic field clearly tells us that ether consists of particles only.

As assumed by Lorentz, the condition of this aether at a place can be described by the electric field E and the magnetic field H, where these fields represent the "states" of the aether, with no further specification, related to the charges of the electrons.

Ok, if we move the magnet, its field is not lost.  It clearly tells us that ether is so dense that it is very difficult to separate them. 

However if we move the magnet at the speed of light, its field is lost.  At that speed, it is very difficult for particles in the space to join magnet.

I think, this is the first test for “New ether”.  As said by Einstein, old ether theory is incompatible with modern science. 

[Bored chemist]

As assumed by Descartes, there is no place for magnet,

I don't know what Descartes assumed, but there is a place for a magnet.
For example, there's one on my fridge.

It he had so, science will be in different shape. 

That's nonsense, all the experiments showed that the ether wasn't there.

[Origin]

Descartes has got a big doubt, how these magnets identify a like and unlike poles.  He assumed that there is an invisible field with which these magnets are interacting and identifying it.     

This is not a feature or quality of magnets.

Space is not empty and it is completely filled with particles.   It is completely wrong to say that magnet creates its field.

As assumed by Descartes, there is no place for magnet, like ordinary matter, it has to create its own.  It pushes ether particles in the space.  Due to attraction, more particles are attracted towards the magnet.  So, it results in magnetic field. 

Magnet  =   magnetic field (draws particles from space).

So, it clearly tells us that, ether or Luminiferous ether or light bearing ether is not hardest substance like steel.  Further it also clearly tells us that there is direct relationship between magnet and aether. 

Attraction of particles towards magnet clearly tells us that ether is spread every where in the space.  It also gives us an idea that ether is not a separate substance or medium. 

Magnetic field clearly tells us that ether consists of particles only.

As assumed by Lorentz, the condition of this aether at a place can be described by the electric field E and the magnetic field H, where these fields represent the "states" of the aether, with no further specification, related to the charges of the electrons.

Ok, if we move the magnet, its field is not lost.  It clearly tells us that ether is so dense that it is very difficult to separate them. 

However if we move the magnet at the speed of light, its field is lost.  At that speed, it is very difficult for particles in the space to join magnet.

This is all just a bunch of conjectures that is counter to all evidence and experimentation.  Making stuff up that is not supported by the evidence is not science, it is pseudoscience.