Einstein did not prove or disprove or advocate an ether theory. He did
dispel ether with any mechanical characteristics, which is what Cecil
was talking about (at least he implied with his reference from an
Einstein speec) and what I also have said before but hel did not
recognize. From Cecil's earlier reference the following paragraph
(from a speech long after 1905 by A. Einstein) is found:

"More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory
of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the
existence of an ether (but) only we must give up ascribing a definite
state of motion to it, i.e. we must *by abstraction* (dfinn emphasis)
take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had
still left it. We shall see later that this point of view, the
conceivability of which shall at once endeavour to make more
intelligible by a somewhat halting comparison, is justified by the
results of the general theory of relativity."

A key word is "abstraction". That is what the philosopher Kostro does
not understand. Johnny Smith, in plain English this whole exercise
means that Einstein reflected that forces (in this case gravitational)
can be considered to act on space, primarily. The force's effect on
mass would then be a secondary condition that occurs due to the
force's distortion of space. It is a rather cool way of looking at
things...it is an acceptable way of conceptualizing the universe.
Looking at space in such a way allows us to consider that "absolute
empty" space must be "something" because forces act on it. Light
follows space. Space directs the transport of light in a way that is
fully dependent on the forces acting on space. The something can be
referred to as a type of ether which directs the the transport of
light. But this ether is an abstraction, depending upon whether you
consider space or mass to be the "primary" entity upon which the
forces act. Now Johnny, I really "get" the additional things that you
are saying (they are things that have no relationship to this
concept). You are calling your ether something that is material, which
Einstein definitely ruled out in the Special Theory in 1905. You drag
out the well-known hypothesess about the exotic matter stuff, with
particles popping in and out of physical form in space-time and
neutinos or whatever and call the physical matter (or perhaps exotic
matter) "the ether". Even though Einstein ruled that out material
ether in 1905, let us bring back the material ether once again for
nostalgic purposes. We then find that these exotic/physical matter
alternations do not occupy all of space all of the time. This means
some parts of space truly are absolutely "empty" some of the time.
What is there to propagate your light waves at those points in space-
time when the material ether is not there and the space is absolutely
empty? hmmmm...and to add insult to injury, Cecil is faced with the
prospect that at some coordinates in space, some of the time, there
exists "nothing" some of the time. I agree with Einstein's *abstract*
ether in exactly the same way that Einstein does: only when you
consider space the primary. But no one says I must take space as the
primary; to me it is still more obvious that matter should be the
primary, where no ether is required or indicated.