I've edited my previous message to give you a story about the difference from noise. It's an amazing story.
But it seems there are some readers still attracted to your answer, even if it's nonsensical. I'll prove now that claim of mine, that your answer above has no sense: you specifically quote:
"From the CMB data it is seen that the earth appears to be moving at 368±2 km/s relative to the reference frame of the CMB"
while defending you considering CMB to be 'ether' as this speed information could somehow confirm what you write.
But you can't cherry pick the scientific results like that: It's not a car in which you "just read the speedometer." For you to believe in that speed result which you quote you'd have to believe the formulas for the CMB are right, as the speed is the result of the application of the formulas. So either you believe in the formulas, quote the speed and simply can't call CMB 'ether', because the formulas are based on it not being and behaving as that, or you don't believe in the formulas, but then you are rejecting all the related science of last approximately 100 years, checked and verified unbelievably many times, and you also at the same time can't use the speed as a confirmation of anything you write. In both of these two possible cases your response is nonsensical as it contradicts itself in both cases from one sentence to another.
"The CMB is faint cosmic background radiation filling all space."
"From the CMB data it is seen that the earth appears to be moving at 368±2 km/s relative to the reference frame of the CMB"
Bantering calling that "some ´ether´ background radiation" is not that far fetched.
It would be interesting to find out how the physicist distinguish CMB from noise in their equipment.