Or how about gravity itself? If space is a true vacuum, a true nothing, then there's nothing for gravity to bend, yet gravitational bending of light is observed. There is clearly a medium in which light propagates. The warp and woof of it is observed, and yet has been denied. You can't bending "nothing", ergo: there is something. Call it aether, call it quantum sludge, but if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, well, the scientists don't have to call it a duck if egos won't permit, but the existence of the water fowl cannot be denied.
“If space is a true vacuum, a true nothing, then there’s nothing for gravity to bend, yet gravitational bending of light is observed. There is clearly a medium in which light propagates. The warp and woof of it is observed, and yet has been denied. You can’t bending “nothing”, ergo: there is something.”
True, except that space isn’t being bent in relativity, “space-time” is, which is a subtle distinction but it has important implications. So, perhaps this “space-time” itself is the replacement aether needed, at least to make relativity function.
On the other hand, I still doubt Einstein’s explanation that space-time warping is the cause of gravity. If you think about the classic demonstration of it (the rubber sheet and bowling ball one), it actually demonstrates nothing. For, if you did the experiment in an environment where there was no pre-existing gravity well to pull down the bowling ball, then no motion would be observed. So it’s just a clever magic trick, and not a demonstration of the principle.
It seems to me that mass warping space-time can explain light difraction very obviously, but how it would cause gravity remains a mystery.