"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.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
And it gives us extremely precise information about the earliest times of the Universe, as well as about the whole structure of it. The scientific results from its models and results are indisputable for decades already:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Background_Explorer#Bla...
What's happening now is much more complicated story: there are two basic approaches to measure how old the Universe is, we know anyway that it's more than 12 billions of years, but they differ and the difference is less than 10 percent (i.e. around a billion years). One of these approaches depends on the CMB measurements. The other is this one from the article to which we all comment. The scientists hope that they can learn something new even from that less than 10 percent difference. But that won't invalidate the existing measurements, or make anything "completely wrong" it can only lead to some adjustments of the existing models:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/05/03/cosm...
Edit: re "how the scientists know it's not noise" -- CMB was estimated some 70 years ago and measured 60 years ago, for 60 years all the scientists of the world were able to check and recheck and effectively nobody can seriously dispute it. Different careful measurements by the satellites only improved the picture, and confirmed the predictions beyond any doubt (one of those I've already given). There's an article about CMB's discovery in Wikipedia, of course: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_cosmic_microwave_...
The most interesting point is: CMB doesn't behave like noise would. It has so called "blackbody spectrum" which in common speak means its spectrum has very specific shape, that nothing that is not thermal by nature would have.
https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_cmb.html
So we know that the Universe was around 270 millions degrees hot at the moment this radiation was produced! Then the Universe expanded for billions of years which lowered the temperature of the CMB and now its temperature is only 2.7 degrees above absolute zero! The "noise" would not have such curve, and COBE mission was the first to measure and confirm it, it was amazingly good fit to the predictions, all following satellites produced even better results. It's one of the most impressive fits to the scientific predictions ever.