From your text: \(d = s_y\) \(V_B = s_y\) where d is a length (distance), and V is a volume. You have just written: \(d = V_B\), in other words: [meter] = [meter]^3. You are wrong; please check your maths again. Until you define it, which is what you have done. I don't think ether per definition has to be undefined. Heck, the entire idea over a hundred years ago was to discover (and thus "define") it! Which doesn't preclude it from being an ether model. So, no absolute reference frame, but an absolute observer? Really, are you going to drag religion into this? You do know that Newtonian physics can describe the motion of particles from any reference frame, so from infinitely many observers? In fact, perform a Galilean transformation so your observer isn't moving anymore. Your theory breaks down, Newtonian physics continues to operate just fine. Funny that... I have demonstrated to have better knowledge than you, so yeah... I think you've confused me and you... I will promise to read more carefully, if you promise to write more carefully. Well, you haven't given any at the point I stopped reading your text, but you've violated basic Newtonian principles that I know to be a pretty good description of reality. But let's put this to the test: describe (or point me to the derivation of) the hydrogen spectrum using your theory. The perihelion of Mercury. The Michelson–Morley experiment. These are basic observations mainstream science can explain. Can your theory do that too? I have compare them, and found your model lacking. I in fact reject it based on the fact your cornerstone formula is wrong, and its results are incompatible with basic physical principles (such as the independence of your choice of observer). I'm sorry you wasted your time, but I wasn't around 10 months ago. But 10 months ago I would also have pointed out your cornerstone formula is wrong. And 10 months from now it'll still be wrong, unless you go and fix it. In fact, I encourage you to go and fix it!