Then what is your explanation for the outcome of the Michelson-Morley experiment and all its subsequent replications?
QUOTE]
Relativity is a cartoon concept with no attributes whatsoever unless the ability to fabricate a story is considered an attribute.Let us see if Albert’s view holds up to scrutiny and I fully expect that Catholics with a little scientific background can fully witness that Newton held no such view.Again,Newton showed his peevish side that borders on dishonesty,I know,I have been through the whole documented mess .
Michelson-Morley experiment -
“In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since he classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation relative to an absolute space is also something real. Newton might no less well have called his absolute space ``Ether’’; what is essential is merely that besides observable objects, another thing, which is not perceptible, inust be looked upon as real, to enable acceleration or rotation to be looked upon as something real.”
twelvestar.com/Sourceworks/Ether%20and%20Relativity.html
Did you ever bother to read that Newton dropped his 1670 consideration of a medium from the Principia (1687) where the definitions and terminolgy of absolute/relative are found HENCE it is impossible to associate aether with absolute space.
Here,see for yourself -
"Definition 10: Gravitation is the force that induces a body to go
down. Let us understand here by “going down” not only the motion
towards the center of the Earth, but also towards any point or
region; or also, accomplished from any point. Similarly, if we
consider as gravity the conatus* of the ether that rotates about
the Sun in a motion to get away from the center of that body, we
must say that the ether that is moving away is falling. Also,
to remain consistant with the analogy, the plane that is directly
opposed to the determination of gravity or the effort will be
called horizontal.
Besides, the quantity of these powers, that is, the motion, the
force, the conatus, the impetus**, the inertia, the pressure and
the gravity is evaluated in two manners: according to the intensity
of these powers and according to their spread."
De Gravitatione 1670
“I have no regard in this place to a medium, if any such there is,
that freely pervades the interstices between the parts of bodies.”
Principia 1687
members.tripod.com/~gravitee/definitions.htm#time
“The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space
is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions
of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of
gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts
for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would
be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large
celestial bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the
microscopic pores of bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of
their parts which their heat and all their active force consists in.
Further, since matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but
would actually interfere with the operations of Nature, and [314]
weaken them, there is no solid reason why we should believe in any
such matter at all. Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected.”
Optics 1704
It will get 10 times stronger, I’m gonna beef it up some more and put it on the front page of my apologetics site with the heading “Sungenis Was Wrong” 
Why should Catholics have a problem with the theory of relativity?
!!