I will not go further into details of your theories (let us spare my time and yours). I would just like to say that relativity, quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, etc... (modern physics) correctly predict most of all observations connected to the microscopic world. Can your setup do as good? I honestly doubt about that.
Of course it can!
Aether theory was the basis for Maxwell's equations. The problem is that he abstracted the connection to the basic hypothesis away, which resulted in inconsistent equations. The major problem with Maxwell's equations is that these allow "gauge freedom", which forms the basis of all kinds of weird theories, fields and what have you. Of course, this "gauge freedom" should NOT be there, considering that Maxwell started out at the aether hypothesis.
Also, because of the same inconsistency, you get a set of wave equations which are not invariant to the galilean transform, which should have indicated that there is something wrong with Maxwell's equations, which, after all, are supposed to describe waves in a fluid-like medium which does NOT have "gauge freedom".
With Einstein's relativity theory, this transformation issue has been "resolved" by the introduction of the Lorentz transform, which in essence introduces the concept of "compressibility" to the model, albeit in a rather weird way. It proposes time to be compressible, instead of the logical candidate: the medium.
When introducing this compressibility aspect at the proper place in the model, both curving space as well as quantum weirdness are gone, while you get a consistent theory which naturally integrates the current theories, which diverged out of the same flaw, which I like to call "Maxwell's hole". And therefore, a theory fixing the error which gave rise to the current misunderstandings, fundamentally re-integrates physics theory right at the point where it all went wrong . It should be no surprise this works all the way from the sub-atomic up to galaxy scale and explains gravity as well: Gravity = grad [E].
A scientific theory will not be thrown away because anyone claims it is wrong. It will be replaced if someone propose a new theory that does at least as good as the older theory. And this theory should give back the current paradigm in some limit, otherwise the latter would not work so well.
Well, this one shares a lot of predictions with the current standard model, yet can do without "virtual particles", "curving space" and all the other quantum weirdness, while predicting a new phenomenon: longitudinal dielectric waves, so it's actually testable as well.. :)
Regards,