Maciej Marosz I know Ernst Mach's work, I know most of the main historic physicists work because I have studied them.
Most of them got some bits right and some bits wrong. This is the problem everyone has with you, you take the right bits but want to ignore the bits they got wrong. Even Einstein got things wrong which in Einstein's case was Quantum Mechanics.
Mach's principle is usually written as
"Local physical laws are determined by the large-scale structure of the universe."That statement is so vague you could argue almost any theory of gravity is Machian and I would argue it isn't even a scientific theory. Sorry I think Mach was a better philosopher than a scientist and his mixing of the two created problems like that rubbish statement.
From someone who studies QM Mach's great theory smacks of so wrong it hurts. At times we get accused because we create an almost Anti-Mach version which goes like this
"Local physical laws are determined by the small-scale quantum behaviour of particles as the effects become macroscopic to the scale of the universe." So QM is almost anti-Mach but I know why you like Mach theory. However to me both of those statements are much more philosophy than science and pointless discussing.
As for Mach theory, you may like to discuss long-dead ideas in physics I don't.
This is why modern science demands theories be explained in detail and in physics that means mathematics because we don't accept rubbish like Mach's theory above anymore and I don't even view it as a scientific theory.
YOUR IDEA IS VERY SIMILAR TO A 1961 THEORY
I am sure from your comments above people have told you this. I don't think you copied the idea it just collapses to the same theory. You probably won't understand the terms Brans-Dicke used so I will simplify it a bit.
The theory was called Brans-Dicke gravity here is the 1961 original paper its easily readable even by a layman with reasonable mathematics because Mach theory is very simple (
Brans-Dicke paper )
The idea of B-D gravity is to couple matter to a scalar field, which provides a physical mechanism for Mach's idea that an object's inertia comes from the other matter in the universe.
That scalar field is what you describe in your theory as the aether. You have infinite waves from many sources summing to give the final result .. you have in that way coupled matter via your waves (which is a scalar field)Brans-Dicke never describe how or why they thought the coupling existed you would have to ask them. Perhaps it was the same as you aether and waves, I really don't know why they did it but they did it.
What Brans-Dicke did was what you have failed to do write Mach's theory in modern mathematics. B-D gravity has a dimensionless parameter "W" which basically acts like the universal gravity constant in GR. In your theory you would end up with the same construction, you have too there is no other choice as you only have 1 aether so 1 force.
The problem is Brans-Dicke also realized "W" should be of the general order of magnitude of unity (1) because as "W" -> infinity, B-D gravity reduces to GR because both theories must cover all existing observations. Analysis of the mercury perihelion gave them a number around 6 for "W" so they thought they had a chance.
The best current limit on universe data we have is "W" > 40,000. Therefore, B-D gravity would be considered as falsified because the universe looks nothing like the theory and actually looks GR in nature and Dicke obviously accepted that as later in his career he moved into GR.
The point above shows why we need you to write your theory out with proper mathematics because we can then show you where and how it fails. You don't need to understand how or what the waves or aether are you just need to know that they couple matter to a field or force and what would the result be, that's the power of mathematics. When you ask what would the universe look like if what I propose was true .... mathematics says is nothing like what we see. So we can forget looking for the aether or the little waves in your theory because it clearly doesn't work and so why waste time and money.
Robert H Dicke might be a more modern Mach type physicist you might want to read up on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._DickeWhat is happening at the moment is you are playing drawing and word games with your theory and we can't look at one point and say "there see that's the error" because you change and evolve the theory continually by playing games.
That is also why many think you are just trolling.
What most of the science people can't work out if you spent half the time studying GR that you do playing around with long dead physics you would know all these answers.
