Gravity: The why and the how:

[paddoboy]

Then Purpose of your theory?

Bingo!!! Well done.
In my opinion, as I have told Schmelzer repeatedly, his ether paper is just another scientific paper that at best mimics GR and at worst promotes the long defunct luminiferous ether scenario. Michelson/Morley experiment invalidated that.
Spacetime/universe is all there is, and it is against this which understand the nature of SR and GR.


"The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality."
Hermann Minkowski
This new reality was that space and time, as physical constructs, have to be combined into a new mathematical/physical entity called 'space-time', because the equations of relativity show that both the space and time coordinates of any event must get mixed together by the mathematics, in order to accurately describe what we see.
https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q411.html

The discussion about an ether is much ado about nothing.

 

[Schmelzer]

Then Purpose of your theory? Why I said equivocating that you are not able to convincingly say that its a cear alternative to GR (you do mention that) but overall you maintain a stand as given in the quote.

A theory should have a Purpose? What's this? Another word for Paddoboy's Agenda? No wonder that he has enthusiastically reacted with:

Bingo!!! Well done.

The only purpose I can identify for a physical theory is to be true, that means, a correct representation of reality.

It seems indeed better to put the discussion into a separate thread, I have started one at http://www.sciforums.com/threads/an-ether-theory-of-gravity-compatible-with-modern-physics.153203/ and will continue to answer there.

 

[paddoboy]

A theory should have a Purpose? What's this? Another word for Paddoboy's Agenda? No wonder that he has enthusiastically reacted with:

Sure it should. To explain an observation as accurately and as closely as possible. GR does that and has been experimentally tested and verified to great accuracies. Yours at best does not do any better, despite your claims to the contrary.