OK... Some new questions... First how does your model vary then from the lumineferous aether. You are aware that most aether theories today are vastly different from those theories. Why do we need your aether?
I started with recognizing that a Newtonian background, which does not exist in GR, would essentially simplify GR quantization and that there is, with the harmonic coordinate condition, a nice candidate to define this background. So, if one wonders how to quantize gravity, then the choice would be the ether (string theory has not proven that it can give QG, it remains only an unproven hope that everything will be finite there.)
Then I recognized that with this preferred Newtonian background defined by the harmonic condition, there is also a simple definition of an ether, so that the harmonic condition defines the continuity and Euler equations of the ether. If one accepts this interpretation, there may, in principle, appear places where the ether tears into parts, so that the ether density becomes zero. One would have to add some boundary conditions in this case, thus, to modify GR. But this is "in principle". But it has a nice consequence: These modified equations would have to be applied for all solutions with causal loops. So, if you think solutions with causal loops cannot be reasonable physics, my ether theory is much better than GR. Wormholes and similar sci fi nonsense is excluded too. So, sci fi writers would prefer GR.
Then I found that one can derive for the Lorentz ether the Lagrangian and the Einstein equivalence principle in a quite simple way, with the action equals reaction principle of the Lagrange formalism being the origin of relativistic symmetry. And this is already a key why we need an ether - to explain relativistic symmetry. What are the alternatives? One can embrace relativistic symmetry as fundamental, and end up as a relativist who fails to quantize gravity because this is impossible preserving general-relativistic symmetry. Or one can simply reject it. Then one looks weak once the relativists point to all the experiments which have never shown a violation of relativistic symmetry, and ask for explanation. Or you can present an explanation. I can. Can somebody else?
Why would one need my ether? It gives a classical common sense compatible picture of the world of modern physics. String theorists may prefer mysticism of some 11 dimensional space somehow defining a curved spacetime, and the rejection of realism and causality. But those who prefer a picture of modern physics which is compatible with common sense, realism, causality, have no choice but to embrace the ether. So, the conflict is between realism and common sense against mysticism and relativism, anti-realism.
In comparison with other ether theories you need my ether because it is the only one which is compatible with modern physics. The main difference to the luminiferous ether is that my ether is universal, all fields are waves of various properties of the ether, not only light waves. It is clear that any other ether has no chance, given that all the fields of the SM as well as the gravitational field use wave equations with the same c defining the maximal speed of the wave. The point of the ether theory was to identify that c with waves of an ether. But if you follow this line, and claim that the speed c of light waves has to be explained as the speed of waves of an ether, then the same speed of all the other fields cries for being explained in the same way.
So, my ether is also a Theory of Everything. Yet another reason to prefer it. If I see yet another approach to ether theory and see that the ether is luminiferous but all the other fields of the SM are not even mentioned, this is already sufficient to throw it away.
Then, if one wants to understand the Standard Model of particle physics, the choice would have to be my ether theory. There are three generations, three colors, and if you think about these appearances of 3 have something to do with our space being three-dimensional, you can find this in my ether theory.