I have had this question nagging at me and making me lose sleep for over a year now, and I can't find the answer anywhere. Hopefully someone here (or at the other physics forum I got to) can help. OK. Let me just preface the question with some information. If you know me through my posts, you may already know all of this. I am not a Physicist. I have never even taken a physics course in High School. The little I do know about Physics I have learned through reading books and papers, discussing the topic with scientists I have known and by asking questions on Internet forums. I am doing this for nothing more than my own edification and to satisfy my curiosity. The main stumbling block I have come up against in my self-education on Physics is my limited math skills. Learning the required math (on my own) has (as expected) proven to be a slow and arduous process. In the meantime, I have been attempting to learn as much as I can relying on reason. I have been fairly successful to this end, but obviously, it has its limitaions. I have a respectable understanding of SR (have not tackled GR yet), its reasoning and implications. When deciding to undertake the process of teaching myself Physics, I decided to take nothing for granted and face everything (even crackpots) with an open mind. Since I was in grade school, no matter what the teacher taught me, if (s)he couldn't explain to my satisfaction the hows and whys, I didn't believe it. Some teachers loved me bacause of it, some hated me. If Feynman, Hawking or Einstein says it's true, that doesn't necessarily mean it is and vice versa. On the other hand, I am also not one of those nit-wit conspracy theorists that will disregard anything out of the box because the "scientific powers that be" stand behind it. As I said, I am open minded. I have also read a number of papers by "anti-relativity" Aether proponents. Some of them make some sense. Some of them argue that Relativity is not supportable because of this flaw or that one in the supporting experiments, or that it is counter-intuitve due to it not being in compliance with Classical Newtonian Physics yet their hypothesis is far more flawed and/or makes Relativity look like elementary mathematics in light of their unsupportable fanciful explantions regarding 12th dimensions and swirling vortices of imaginary energy. I know that SR is fully supportable by experimental results. I know that the math makes complete sense, and is accurate. I have been told (and am taking it on faith for the time being) that GR makes up for what SR does not account in various "paradoxes" that SR fails to explain on its own. I have read the accounts of the Michelson Morely experiemnts (and other similar experiments since). I have read what the Aether proponets claim is flawed in them. I have read what Relativity proponents have replied to that. I do agree that relativity is counter-intuitive in some aspects, but I am also fully aware that counter-intuitiveness alone is no reason to discount anything. I am not attempting to disprove Einstein, nor have I fully accepted Relativity yet. I have only one question (unanswered by either camp) remaining that allows the Aether to still exist as a reasonable possibility in my mind, and that is the purpose of this post. The question may very well have been answered, I have just not come across that answer yet. I know that after reading this preface some people would have rolled their eyes by now and assumed I am an idiot, loaded their guns ready to shoot me down. If you are one of those people, please do us both a favor and don't bother. Keep assuming I am an idiot and click the back button on your browser rather than wasting your precious valuable time on me. The Relativists that I have read, in their explanations about why the Aether theories are not valid, invariably point to the lack of "Aether-wind". This explanation, is contested by Aetherists by various different (seemingly spurious at best) descriptions of faulty or limited equipment, limited test conditions, what have you. Let's say, for sake of argument, that we have firmly established an uncontested lack of "Aether-wind". As far as I can tell, this lack of "Aether-wind" would be sufficient evidence to disregard any "static" Aether theory, but I have yet to come across anyone providing evidence against a "dynamic" Aether theory. Let me explain what I mean by "static" and "dynamic". If the Aether were a "solid" substance or "fabric" (as some refer to it as) then the planets would be moving through this substance, and the M&M based experiments would have detected a wind. That is a given. However, what if the Aether were not A substance, rather space was filled with discrete particles (perhaps fundamental) that were, in effect, individual EM radiation tranducers of sorts. Radiation would pass from one of these particle (radiation carriers) to the next. First, this "formation" would explain Einstein's results from his photoelectric experiments that led to the current wave/particle duality view of EM radiation: They are discrete particles. The particles do not move in wave formation, however the energy would move as a wave through the particles, adhering to the inverse square rule. It would also explain the lack of "Aether-wind", because each of these discrete particles would be affected by gravity, therefor being dragged along with bodies. The particles being affected by gravitational fields would also explain the bending of light around massive bodies. There are other things this would address, but I am tired, and if this hypothesis has already (or can be) proven wrong by experimental evidence (or through reason), it would be a waste fo time pointing out all I have considered. In short, I have spent a lot of my spare time over the past year or so doing research trying to prove my hypothesis wrong, and have have not been able to. I am not posting here to tell you that I am right and why. I am posting here asking you to do what I could not. Punch holes in this and show me why it is wrong. Again, let me remind you that my math skills are limited. I believe it was Einstein (I could be wrong) who said basically that if you can't explain your theory to your grandmother, then you don't truly understand it yourself. Explain it to me like I am your grandmother. Thanks for any help you can offer. BTW, I don't plan on being online again until, at least, December 1st, so do not expect replies before then.