Plasma clouds? What is really amazing is that you truly believe that what you say makes sense...and in a perverse way, you do make sense.
"Plasma on the other hand is specifically the free fermion pairs and free protons condensed FROM the ether into 'matter'."
Plasmas are plasmas...electrons and protons bound into a gas like state by charge force. Most plasmas in space are electrons and protons but you avoid saying electrons, and that makes what you say very confusing jiberish. You seem to be inventing a plasma without electrons. Plasmas are so unique that they are often called a fourth state of matter. They have both electron and ion temperatures and emit and absorb light readily.
I have worked extensively with 1 eV plasmas at 1e20/m3 or so and it was lots of fun. We did spectrosopy, magnetic confinement, rotation with electric field, and succeeded in separating large amounts of ions by their masses. But plasmas are very, very voracious little buggers and we needed several megawatts just to sustain our baby as a steady state at several tens of cubic meters.
In fact, plasmas decay by emission of light and eventually emission cools them to the ground state of the hydrogen atom by a final series of excited state emissions called the Rydberg energy, which is the binding energy of hydrogen. There are a bunch of selection rules and parity issues with these processes, but the energetics are straightforward. Collision, obviously, can also cool the plasma.
Aether is an old term for the imagined working fluid of space and has a long history. What you keep talking about is a plasma that is like a cloud and so it is you who have defined a plasma aether, not me. I am just trying to use words that express what you seem to be saying. If you invent a new kind of plasma, you really cannot call it plasma without confusing everyone, so you need to call it DFM plasma or just plasma aether works for me.
As far as I know, there is no aether that fills all space and there is no plasma that fills all space, and that is because there really is nothing that is space. The nothing of space is just that...nothing at all. You gotta love our language!
However, there are clouds of plasma in space that emit and absorb light and there are clouds of neutral hydrogen that emit and absorb light and there are clouds of cold neutral hydrogen that only absorb light,and there are clouds of dust. Plasmas always emit light and therefore eventually decay into the ground state of the hydrogen atom unless there is sufficient reexcitation to reionize and maintain the plasma electron and ion temperatures, which are usually different.
"As EM waves couple strongly with fermions, constantly re-emitted at c in the local fermion rest frame (Pearle et al's CSL) the fact that clouds of fermions move wrt each other means that the CMB can NOT represent a single 'universal' rest frame datum applicable everywhere."
Matter of all kinds, not just plasmas, absorb and emit light at c. All clouds of matter absorb light, but only hot clouds of matter emit light. If the cloud of neutral matter is cold, we only see its absorption as a result of some background source. We are just such a cloud of hot and cold matter in our galaxy and we are moving wrt the CMB. Every other galaxy in the universe can see the same CMB and measure their movement wrt the same CMB even if they cannot see our galaxy and therefore know our motion.
Therefore the CMB represents a single universal frame that travels at 99.9998% of the speed of light wrt to every other rest frame. We can imagine that the CMB is a rest frame, but we only measure motion and so we must express all spatial metrics in the universe in units of h, the Hubble constant. In this epoch, our metric is H = 69 to 77 km/s/Mpc depending on how you interpret the data. This means that space has so many galaxies per Mpc and so much luminosity per Mpc as well.
It is beyond me why you mention papers that don't even support your thesis. Scott and Smoot have a very nice paper that says absolutely nothing about recycling. Moreover, a direct quote is:
"The dipole is a frame dependent quantity, and one can thus determine the 'absolute rest frame' of the Universe as that in which the CMB dipole would be zero. Our velocity relative to the Local Group, as well as the velocity of the Earth around the Sun, and any velocity of the receiver relative to the Earth, is normally removed for the purposes of CMB anisotropy study."
So even Scott and Smoot support the notion of an absolute frame of reference. Game on...