In a sense, yes.  They're elaborating on the giant space iceball theory, which while it's interesting, is highly speculative, and they have no proof for ... and, despite their having thrown Flat Earthers under the bus, will be ridiculed and deride as much by mainstream science as FE is.

Now, thus far, I did learn one interesting fact, which is where Einstein himself rehabilitated the "ether" with his General Theory of Relativity ... because he realized that cosmology was unworkable without it.  They had to discard the ether because otherwise Michelson-Morley would have proven that the earth is stationary.  That was the very motivation for his Special Theory of Relativity.  And, yet, somehow Einstein claimed that the ether had no velocity ... which I don't know what that means except that it's probably a way to revive ether without thereby having to resurrect the Michelson-Morley conclusion.

I'm sure that in the subsequent days, they'll get into topics like Evolution and whatnot (but they've only gotten through Day Two so far), and the arguments they've presented in the past regarding evolution have been extremely solid.

Maybe the ether having no velocity is like the pixels on a motion picture screen not moving while the picture does. This would solve the problem of things being able to move across infinitely small distances, because in reality they cross over into defined minimum fractions of space, like jumping pixel to pixel. I vaguely remember hearing something about scientists determining the smallest possible fractions of time and distance. I don't know if that is a limitation of the universe, or a limitation of the tools available or what's possible with any measuring device (all might just be the same reason).

An essay on ether came in to me this morning. In it is

Einstein
Contrary to what is often believed, Einstein was a strong supporter of the aether. He somewhat half-heartedly rejected it in his 1905 Special Relativity paper:"The introduction of a 'luminiferous aether' will prove to be superfluous."
But in 1919 he had second thoughts, writing in a letter to Lorentz :"It would have been more correct if I had limited myself to emphasizing only the nonexistence of an aether velocity, instead of arguing its total nonexistence. To deny the existence of the aether means in the last analysis denying all physical properties to empty space."
 
And then in his 1920 Leiden address he resoundingly brought it back again:"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the General Theory of Relativity space is endowed with physical qualities. In this sense there exists an aether. Space without an aether is unthinkable. Not only would there be no propagation of light, but also no standards of space and time."

Evidently contradicting his the earlier statement. But then, Albert was no stranger to contradiction.'

Did he reject "aether velocity" as a way to negate the findings of Michelson-Morley?  I'm not sure what he meant by having an aether while rejecting aether velocity.

In a different quote cited in the video, Einstein admitted that the notion of forces acting at a distance without some medium was absurd ... aka, the post-ether theory of "gravity".

So, the ONLY reason they threw out either was because they refused to accept the notion that the earth did not move (Michelson-Morley).

But now it looks like they're bringing it back because the notion of "dark matter" is required to keep their cosmology on life support.  But how, then, do they avoid also resuscitating the results of Michelson-Morley other than by fiat?

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24432543-300-einstein-killed-the-aether-now-the-idea-is-back-to-save-relativity/

Evidently, the only way to negate Michelson-Morley would be to propose an "aether drag" theory, and a "complete ether drag theory" ... except complete aether drag has been negated by a number of experiments, including Sagnac.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis

Problems of complete aether dragging

Complete aether dragging can explain the negative outcome of all aether drift experiments (like the Michelson–Morley experiment). However, this theory is considered to be wrong for the following reasons:

The Fizeau experiment (1851) indicated only a partial entrainment of light.

The Sagnac effect shows that two rays of light, emanated from the same light source in different directions on a rotating platform, require different times to come back to the light source. However, if the aether is completely dragged by the platform this effect should not occur at all.
Oliver Lodge conducted experiments in the 1890s, seeking evidence that the propagation of light is influenced by being in the proximity of large rotating masses, and found no such influence.

Complete aether dragging is inconsistent with the phenomenon of stellar aberration. In this illustration, imagine the stars to be infinitely distant. Aberration occurs when the observer's velocity has a component that is perpendicular to the line traveled by the light incoming from the star. As seen in the animation on the left, the telescope must be tilted before the star will appear in the center of the eyepiece. As seen in the animation of the right, if the aether is dragged in the vicinity of the Earth, then the telescope must be pointed directly at the star for the star to appear in the center of the eyepiece.

It is inconsistent with the phenomenon of stellar aberration.

They're desperate to explain away Michelson-Morley, and all of modern "cosmology" seems to derive from those attempts to "explain [away] the negative outcome of [Michelson-Morley].

They're desperate to explain away Michelson-Morley, and all of modern "cosmology" seems to derive from those attempts to "explain [away] the negative outcome of [Michelson-Morley].

‘There had to be an explanation [for the Airy and M&M test result]. Either the Earth was motionless with respect to the ether, or the Earth dragged the ether with it, or something. All possible explanations seemed highly unlikely, and for nearly a quarter of a century, the world of science was completely puzzled. It took a scientific revolution to explain the matter, so that the Michelson-Morley experiment is perhaps the most important “failure” in the history of science.’ --- Isaac Asimov: Chronology of Science & Discovery, p.388.

Were it not for the need to get the Earth orbiting again, it is probable most would never have heard of Albert Einstein. Using this man they achieved their goal, for today Einstein’s reputation as a genius knows no bounds, his name now synonymous with the idea of genuine superior human brainpower way beyond the rest of us.

‘The enemies of society are bent on persuading us that mankind is evolving and progressing and that the intellectual capacities of the human being are steadily increasing. This deification of the modern man - and what is being attempted is no less than that - is greatly assisted if the last century or so is shown to have produced intellectuals of unprecedented capacity, capable of opening the eyes of the world to truths which had remained hidden in all previous centuries of his history. The second generality is that it is much easier to impose false beliefs on the world if they are personalised. If a theory is put forward without reference to the person who originated it, there will be a tendency for it to be judged on its merits and then, if it clearly has no merits, for it to be rejected. This is far from being the case if a theory - however ludicrously opposed to common sense it may be - is put forward by a man of universally acknowledged genius. Now the tendency will be for the theory to be examined with respect, if it cannot be understood this will be ascribed to the incapacity of the person examining the theory; if it appears manifestly illogical it will be assumed that the originator has grasped a logic that is beyond the reach of lesser mortals. In short it will gradually become accepted on no better grounds than the authority of the person who has advanced it.’--- N. M. Gwynne,Einstein and Modern Physics

‘The third and most important reason [to study this chapter well] is that he [Einstein and his theories of relativity] provides another opportunity to show up the fallacy of the general belief that modern science, in every field but perhaps especially in mathematics and physics, is so complicated that it cannot be understood by the non-specialist, and that the layman has no choice but to rely on the words of experts with superior intelligence and training. Stripped of its disguises, which as with other science and elite professions are mostly jargon and bluff, Einstein’s relativity, whether Special Theory or General Theory, involves no major challenge to the intellect in order to be understood. [Einstein’s] Relativity is not merely nonsense, it is simple nonsense; and the only difficulty in seeing this lies in bringing oneself to believe it possible that anything so generally accepted by so many intelligent people [and for so long] really can be such obvious nonsense.’--- Martin Gwynne