[This a copy of a post I made on another forum]

The short, and brutal, answer is: it isn't science.

But to be constructive, I'll set out what I think are the criteria a proposition needs to fulfill to be regarded as a "Scientific Theory".

My proposition must be:

a) Well defined, by which is meant that it must clearly state its domain of applicability, and, by implication those areas to which it does not apply;

b) Well motivated. meaning, either that I can demonstrate that there are phenomena which are not adequately accounted for by existing theory (assuming there is one), or that there are internal inconsistencies in existing theories that lead to a demonstrable contradiction;

c) Well founded: all existing data are fully accounted for, and connected, by my proposition. Alternatively, that taking a generally accepted minimum data set, or apparently self-evident axioms, all other existing data sets are fully accounted for;

d) Well formulated: The argument from premise (data set, axiom set, postulates, assumptions....) to conclusion is in accord with established logic, and, moreover, implicit in my proposition is the data set that would render it false, i.e. predictive power;

These, I think, are the minimum criteria that a proposition needs to meet even to be considered as a scientific theory. I will add some minor ones:

Parsimony: Where two or more "theories" cannot be distinguished by experimental means, one prefers the most parsimonious - this is Occam's Razor;

Elegance; Where two or more "theories" meet all the criteria above, one prefers the most "aesthetically pleasing"; this is admittedly highly subjective, but take very careful note. Existing theory, to be worthy of serious consideration, must, and usually does, meet the criteria above. This means I may not simply reject existing theory because I "just don't like it".

Equally, if my "theory" also passes all these tests, it too will be seriously considered by reasonable people.

Note that I have deliberately not included examples from history (no, I don't mean the history of this forum), but I believe that I can.

Any thoughts, additions, etc?

I guess if this forum was a world leader and was on the stage in front of the global scientific community. Was in some way significant to global opinion and was demonstrably a forum of substance then I guess a "theory" should by all rights be published only when it is perfected and bullet proof.

For example for years I have asked for unambiguous proof that light actually travels. Not once at this forum or many others has there been proof given that em actually exists as independant of it's reflecting detector [ mass]

So tell me should photon theory be allowed to be discussed at this forum.

In other words I am asking whether a forum such as this should be treated so seriously as to forbid persons from testing themselves and others with their incomplete understandings etc or should it only be for reputable and expert opinions only that serve no significant purpose if published at this site.

A catch 22 if I dare to say.....to keep the standard of enquiry as high as possible yet allow the forum to flourish..not easy for the moderators for sure.

So we have a pseudo science board that allows the inexperienced in such matters to publish their ideas and this must be congratulated and welcomed.

But should such a serious questions such as there quest for unambiguous proof of light travelling be relegated to even further insignificance...hmmmmm...I guess it does.
Is it scientific or ego orientated I leave for your estimation...

For example for years I have asked for unambiguous proof that light actually travels.

Let the photon field be called A_{\mu}(x).

Then the photon propogator in a general 'tHooft gauge is

\left\langle A_{\mu}(x)A_{\nu}(0)\right\rangle = \frac{g_{\mu\nu}-\frac{k_{\mu}k_{\nu}(1-\xi)}{k^2}}{k^2}.

There. The photon propogates. Learn Quantum Field Theory before you tear it apart.

Quantum Quack---

The problem is that I can tell you exactly why your theory, or Reiku's theory, or Farsight's theory or (...) is wrong. I know that I am right, because I have studied these things in sufficient detail so as to give me that confidence. I have been studying these things for six years---I am PAID to study these things, and there isn't a day that passes when I don't think about these things. So when you say ``there is no evidence for the photon propogation'', I can say ``nonsense---the photon two point function describes exactly a photon going from some point called 0 to some point x''. I was taught the photon propogator by someone who learned how to derive it from the person who invented it. I am as much of an expert in photon propogators and quantum electrodynamics as anyone on this board.

But this isn't enough for you---you want to tear down the whole edifice of quantum theory, based on some thought experiment you preform. I can calculate things with the photon propogator and go out and measure them. I can link you to papers that show that quantum electrodynamics is the most accurate theory ever conceived by man.

But this isn't enough for you. I can write threads that derive explicitly, step by step, how I get the above result. I can teach you about second quantization, and path integrals, and Feynmann diagrams.

But this isn't enough for you. You don't want to be told your theory is wrong. You want to post something in the Physics section and have all of us stare, starry eyed at our monitors as we envy your intelligence. You want to be the next Galileo, rejected by Academia and persecuted for your views, vindicated at last by your insight into the universe.

In the grand democracy that is the internet, every opinion counts, whether it is a good opinion or not. Every person has a voice and wants to be taken as seriously as the next person. I am telling you that every time I read a thread here about ``scientific establishment'' or ``the standard of inquiry'' or the like it makes me sick.

Is it too much to ask that whatever new theory you propose be consistent with what has come before? Is it too much to ask that you actually understand the theories you are talking about? Is it too much to ask that you treat your work with at least some illusions of rigor mathematical consistency? Is it too much to ask for you to obey at least some symbolance of the scientific method?

actually I don't have a theory....but you do...hmmmm

So show me a photon that can be differentiated from the reflector used to detect it.
Like wise with gravity.....does gravity exist with out something for it to have an effect on?

distinguish between the object of mass and the emmisions you talk of.

I bet you you can't.

Which means that the theories you hold so dear are inconclusive.

A photon can only be deemedto travel by using reflectors as a way of showing light even exists in the first place.

so The question is asked:
Does light exist if there are no reflectors?

It might seem like an insignificant point of issue but before you close the door on future science I suggest you ensure eixsting thinking has got reason to close that door and as far as I can tell you have no reason to close that door.

You say you have studied for 6 years and yes I respect that considerably however Just think for a moment about the evidence presented and how potentially it has a problem. As the photon can not be differentiated from the reflector ther can be and are possibly other explanation for the pheno we call light or EM that will "gell" with all exsting data and evidence that would support the photon theoryas it stands.

Changing the way the photon is looked at doesn't discredit QM or anything but merely opens the door to sciencentific research that might actually take us to the stars.

Hypothesis is a bit different to theory and at present I am only dealing with hypothesis.

Because even in my naivity I can see a potential area of growth for science that is currently blocked by over confidence in an inconclusive theory.

Describe clearly how a photon can be differentiated from it's reflector and I'll rest my case.

In over three years of asking not once has any one clearly shown how the photon can be differentated from it's reflector thus leaving the door open to light being a mass effect over zero "distance" effect. In fact I would bet a million hypothetical bucks that the consistancy of inertia and teh gravitational constant requires this as an absolute fact.

In 6 years you must have some idea of how inertia and gravity must be constant?

If not I suggest you take my question seriously enough to do some hard thinking....

Just to give you and idea of what is possible if you just let photon theory rest for a moment and open to other possibilities:
A rough pre-amble of a larger work:

You look up at the night sky and see masses in the form of stars, you know of dust particles, meteors and other celestral objects.
However you also know one other thing that is not often realised and that is you can also see the space between you and those celestral objects. You can actually see the vacuum as an empty space. How is it that the eye can see nothing we can ask when we are told we can only see light?
so we ask the next question:
What if we took all of the mass out of the universe? What would we have left? What would remain and what would we see?
Firstly we would not see any mass, and all we could see is vacumm or nothingness. But with out mass to give this nothingness distance what dimensions would this nothingess take on?

Zero dimensions would be the only conclusion.
So could not one conclude that distance [ dimension ] is an illusion created by the existance of mass?
If we have no masses then we have no distance yes?......"

So using this rational the universe is both zero and 4 dimensions simultaneously.

The distance between London and Sydney is both zero [the space between particles] and mass [time] distance simultaneously.
So how does quantum entanglement work do you think?
How does inertia and gravity mantain universal constancy.

Describe clearly how a photon can be differentiated from it's reflector and I'll rest my case.

Two things:

1.) No you won't. You'll find some reason why my explanation doesn't satisfy you. And
2.) What do you mean by ``reflector''?

well tell me what light is with out soemthing to reflect off?
Tell me how light is measured with out using a reflector of some sort?

And before you state that that would apply to everything I would like to congratulate you and say well done....absolutely correct.....

[sorry about being a bit tongue in cheek but I have had this discussion so many times now and the end result is always the same....inconclusive]

Tell me how light is measured with out using a reflector of some sort?

Let me rephrase your question for you...

``Tell me how you detect light without a detector.''

You are guilty of a logical fallacy---you can only detect light with something for it to reflect off of, therefore the reflective surface causes the presence of the photon in the first place.

There's no way to debate a logically flawed premise like this.

Let me rephrase your question for you...

``Tell me how you detect light without a detector.''

You are guilty of a logical fallacy---you can only detect light with something for it to reflect off of, therefore the reflective surface causes the presence of the photon in the first place.

There's no way to debate a logically flawed premise like this.

When I am using mass [ which I might add includes your detector ] as part of the question I see no flaw in premise or logic. Possibly you don't understand the proposition or question?

The reflector must be of mass...or to put it another way...the detector must be an object of mass...yes?

So can you differentiate between the object of mass [ the detector ] and light?

So what if light is an effect of mass [ to talk of mass of course would include the detector] itself and not some mythical freeranging partical called a photon?

I repeat:
What if light is an effect caused by the mass itself?

Ben did you read this from the above post:
Just to give you and idea of what is possible if you just let photon theory rest for a moment and open to other possibilities:
A rough pre-amble of a larger work:

You look up at the night sky and see masses in the form of stars, you know of dust particles, meteors and other celestral objects.
However you also know one other thing that is not often realised and that is you can also see the space between you and those celestral objects. You can actually see the vacuum as an empty space. How is it that the eye can see nothing we can ask when we are told we can only see light?
so we ask the next question:
What if we took all of the mass out of the universe? What would we have left? What would remain and what would we see?
Firstly we would not see any mass, and all we could see is vacumm or nothingness. But with out mass to give this nothingness distance what dimensions would this nothingess take on?

Zero dimensions would be the only conclusion.
So could not one conclude that distance [ dimension ] is an illusion created by the existance of mass?
If we have no masses then we have no distance yes?......"

So using this rational the universe is both zero and 4 dimensions simultaneously.

The distance between London and Sydney is both zero [the space between particles] and mass [time] distance simultaneously.
So how does quantum entanglement work do you think?
How does inertia and gravity mantain universal constancy.

In other words I am asking whether a forum such as this should be treated so seriously as to forbid persons from testing themselves and others with their incomplete understandings etc or should it only be for reputable and expert opinions only that serve no significant purpose if published at this site.QQ, I think you slightly mistook the motive for this thread.

Of course this is not an academic seminar group, and course people are free to post whatever they want. It's a discussion board after all!

But my experience with boards of this sort is that often, perfectly nice, well-meaning and sincere individuals present, in the "mainstream" sections, their pet theories and seem puzzled and even hurt when they get moved to Pseudoscience.

I was merely trying to explain why that might have happened.

Quack---

The current treatment of light is more accurate than any other theory ever proposed by man. And yet you would abandon it just...because?

And what does your statement mean ``Light is a consequence of mass''? How do you define ``mass''? Presumably you want to throw out the higgs mechanism, too? How do you explain the strong and weak forces? How do you explain the cosmic microwave background? How do you explain the breakdown of unitarity in WW scattering at 1 TeV?

Like I said, the idea is not right. I can tell you it's not right. I can show you equations and derive them for you and quantify how not right you are. But still you adhere to your idea because you think that you have found something that the brightest people in the world have been studying for fifty years.

QQ, I think you slightly mistook the motive for this thread.

Of course this is not an academic seminar group, and course people are free to post whatever they want. It's a discussion board after all!

But my experience with boards of this sort is that often, perfectly nice, well-meaning and sincere individuals present, in the "mainstream" sections, their pet theories and seem puzzled and even hurt when they get moved to Pseudoscience.

I was merely trying to explain why that might have happened.

actually at first I did, which was my mistake and I apologiose for any implied criticism.
I agree with what you have posted and I agree with the scientific method as decribed. It is very important if one wishes to be taken seriously that a theory be able to face the toughest of scrutiny.

Possibly though it is worth considering that in the main the poster is posting an idea that they want seriously considered. They feel that they have something of significance and wish to find out whether that is true of not.
They often come onto tthe board firing all chambers thinking that they can generate a response better that way because they already know that they are up against a mainly conservative and entrenched mindset [ which is very necessary of the scientific community]
So they take a deliberately provocative stance and well ....the rest is history...they know that science has many gaps in it's knowledge and they wish to fill them but because of a lack of formal training and discipline all they can present is an idea that is wrapped up as a scientifc theory.

Is this a bad thing?
My opinion is no, it is actually a very productive way for stretching the mind set and expanding the imagination in a disciplined fashion.
It is unfortuinate that ego is the main obstacle to learning and growth.

Certainly science will not take on a theory without signifcant credibility in the form that you talk of.
Maybe there should be a forum for scientific hypthesis or ideas only?
Or a training forum for those ideas to be scrutinised and formally written up.

By taking the poster seriously you are not only capitalising on what is sometimes amazing insight but also providing a way for the poster to find a more balanced pov. By treating the poster with ridicule and derision only reinforces the posters sense of rightness.

I recall many years of discussion over a theory called UNIKEF gravity. I think in the 2 years it was being promoted here it nerver once recieved serious consideration even though I think it holds the record for most posts and views and it was only when it finally did that the theory could be put aside as being improbable and incomplete. I know JamesR and Pete will remember this without a problem. I think it took a mathematician about 5 minutes to prove the theory flawed once it was taken seriously enough.

I remember helping Dan build a website to facilitate proper assessment of his pet theory UNIKEF Gravity.

had a lot of fun I must admit....

Quack---

The current treatment of light is more accurate than any other theory ever proposed by man. And yet you would abandon it just...because?

It doesn't make sense when you ask questions like:

How is a universal constant such as gravity acheived?

How is a universal constant such as inertia achieved?

Thye are impossible to derive using current theory.

Do these constants exist? Yes they do. Does science support the notion of constants...no it doesn't.
It supports only a time fragmented universe that has no foundation to it's coherancy and uniformity or physics.

Albert E.'s postulate about the uniformity of physics has yet to be proved by science. "why is it so that correct physics is a universal constant?"

And what does your statement mean ``Light is a consequence of mass''? How do you define ``mass''? Presumably you want to throw out the higgs mechanism, too? How do you explain the strong and weak forces? How do you explain the cosmic microwave background? How do you explain the breakdown of unitarity in WW scattering at 1 TeV?

Light is a product or effect of inertia which is why it is invariant.

There is no distance between every pixel of space time [ zero dimensional ] yet simultaneously we have 4 dimensions. It is this difference Like I said, the idea is not right. I can tell you it's not right. I can show you equations and derive them for you and quantify how not right you are. But still you adhere to your idea because you think that you have found something that the brightest people in the world have been studying for fifty years.[/QUOTE]

Gosh that reeks of ego centric behaviour!

So the world has been locked into a particular line of thought and someone comes along and suggests and I repeat only suggests that that line of thought may be misdirected and you can offer no real defense except to claim superiority only because of years of endeavour.

Personally I don't care Ben.

[B]The universe is proving you wrong not me.

Show me unambiguous proof that the photon exists?

and you can't. thats all there is to it really.

Surely all those well intended and very gifted people you speak of should be able to provide evidence of the photon that is unambiguous afterall many life times have been devoted to working with it.

If you cannot the you must declare that the photon theory may be possibly flawed in it's application regardless of ego.[as a scientist]

If the question is: Does a photon move through space, the answer is NO.

The photon experiences no time, therego, the photon cannot move through space. It's birth and death are simultaneous according to relativity.

So Ben... You where very wrong.

New angle :D
This photon debate is my favoriate one.

That also goes to show how a body exists in a state of death...
interesting.

If the question is: Does a photon move through space, the answer is NO.

The photon experiences no time, therego, the photon cannot move through space. It's birth and death are simultaneous according to relativity.

So Ben... You where very wrong.
agreed!
The problem is that we give a value to space. I mean to say that we give substance to a volume of vacuum that has no substance.
The distance between here and teh moon is actually zero and only exists if you wish to move something of substance to it. therefore matter determines distance. With out matter there is no distance.

"How big is the universe if all the matter/ mass was taken out of it?"
zero is the answer.
"So what is the real distance between the earth and the moon?"
Zero is the answer.
"What is the distance if you wish to travel there?....hmmmm now thats a different question...."
see the distinction any one?

Yes. we give a spatial and temporal existence to a universe that really has no time at all. Without us, nothing counts. And everything according to relativity hints to this fact. Even quantum theory itself.

Hello all

Are the following statements physically valid? Are they testable?

A photon is energy that travels parallel to space-time. (A skin effect on space-time)
Mass is energy that travels non-parallel to space time. (Reflections within space-time)

:)

BentheMan

"I can link you to papers that show that quantum electrodynamics is the most accurate theory ever conceived by man."

You've caught my interest. Can I please have these links, I believe they will be fun to investigate and learn from?

"I can write threads that derive explicitly, step by step, how I get the above result. I can teach you about second quantization, and path integrals, and Feynmann diagrams."

Have you done this? Can you point me in the direction (of the threads)?
I thrive on learning and increasing my awareness.:cool:

"In the grand democracy that is the internet, every opinion counts, whether it is a good opinion or not. Every person has a voice and wants to be taken as seriously as the next person. I am telling you that every time I read a thread here about ``scientific establishment'' or ``the standard of inquiry'' or the like it makes me sick."

Personally I have tremendous respect for science. It is one of the great cornerstones of human endeavor. I believe it is a means to reform religion and refine it. Maybe not immediately, but the way we see the world today is much different then it was yesterday (as in a long time ago). The beliefs of humanity are changing.

I may be wrong, but part of my brain is oriented towards logic and ration. Part
of it is emotional and intuitive. The logical and rational part will not rest unless
it can sustain the clearest understanding. The emotional and intuitive part comes up with ideas that are fantastic and have no support. My intuition keeps telling me we are going into a great future, despite the logical part which doesn't know what to think about our prospects (of even having a future...logically it doesn't look good with global warming and more).

Yes. we give a spatial and temporal existence to a universe that really has no time at all. Without us, nothing counts. And everything according to relativity hints to this fact. Even quantum theory itself.The biggest problem with deriving a T.O.E is "How consciousness is implicated in the universal equations?"
A TOE can not be sustained without including self animated Perception as proven by the "light wave particle duality"

Given the nature of scientific enquiry and methods used the growth in understanding is necesarilly torturous and pedantic.

If I was to estimate humanity's [ as a collective ] positioning on the "tree of global understanding" I would place it at less than 10%....sigh!
Yet we as a collective tend to take the arrogant position that we are close to knowing it all. How wrong can we be?

Hello all

Are the following statements physically valid? Are they testable?

A photon is energy that travels parallel to space-time. (A skin effect on space-time)
Mass is energy that travels non-parallel to space time. (Reflections within space-time)

:)
Testable?
hmmmmm....

IMO you are thinking along good lines though....

Years ago I posited an understanding about how time dilates and length can contract using the notion that if something was at absolute rest it would cease to exist. [ thus nothing can be at absolute rest = true] Given that the universe must constantly be changing [ at the rate of 'c' ] and when an object of mass moves beyond it's inertia position by use of acceleration or impact the change must be accomodated as being in excess of 'c' [ even if the change is only minor in speed ]
However as the object is now travelling in excess of 'c' due to that accelleration it's time is dilated so that it remains changing at the universal constant rate of 'c'.
In simplistic terms:
The energy imparted on an object of mass to cause accelleration is given back to the universe as demonstrated by the objects time/change rate dilating [ it's ability to change ramains constant yet the energy given to it remains with the universe as a whole and not the object thus it's mass stays constant regardless of velocity.
The conservation of energy is related also to the conservation of time. [ time = energy]

Now this is almost as hard to undertstand as the use of words like "moving parallel...though time..."

1/
The first thing to test and prove is that the universe has a constant change rate of 'c' regardless of what apparent relative velocity an object may be travelling at.
2/
The second thing to prove is that when an object is subjected to change thus energy imparted upon it, that it is a function of inertia to allow that change yet maintain the universal constant rate of change as 'c'.

Thus time must dilate for that objects change rate so that the object involved stays within the same universe as it was originally in. If time did not dilate the object would cease to exist in this univese as it's time line would separate and it would be in a universe of it's own. [ no longer parallel time dimensions ] Where special relativity stuffs up is that it already has every object of mass in it's own universe yet attempts to maintain a coherant universe whilst doing so.
The Time dimension is of course "absolute" universally which is why we have dilation in the first place.....[ unfortunately relativity fails to describe how/why the universe has constants which is it's main obstacle to being correctly founded IMO]

Of course if the above notions were proven correct it would destroy "special relativity" but open the door to studies into inertia.

Hello Quantum Quack

I guess the hard part is to determine if "time" is a rate function determined by multi-dimensional parameters or a separate dimension that we move through.

:)

Hello Quantum Quack

I guess the hard part is to determine if "time" is a rate function determined by multi-dimensional parameters or a separate dimension that we move through.

:)

When it comes to defining "time" it is always difficult. So much confusion exists mainly because special relativity by AE was more or less the first accepted multiple time dimension theory and because the only person who came close to fully understanding it was Albert himself the rest of us just made up our own conclusions. IMO.
I work on the premise that:
The future is a potential defined by the present. Therefore it doen't exist except as a potential.
The past is what generates the future potential, And also no longer exists except as a future potential.
The present is the culmination of "ongoing" potentials and nothing more.

The paradox in our thinking is that we use language to decribe "moving into the future" yet we miss out the words "whilst always staying present in the NOW"
You cannot move "through" time as separate to time [ existentialism] you can only be time and always only "time". At this level You can only "be" change and not "cause" change.

If you look at a light globe shining a distance away for 1 second the light globe has changed approx. 300,000 kms within itself. [ like a ball bouncing on the spot] But it is very important to realise that the observer has also changed exactly the same distance.
The light globe and observer have changed simultaneouly 300000kms with in them selves even though they appear at rest to each other. [relative v=0]

So it can not be claimed that either the light globe or the observer are moving "through" time and it can only be claimed that the light globe and observer are moving "as" time. Yet that movement AS time is only a temporal or hindsight memory.

So it is important to draw the distinction between temporal [ memory - mind ]and physical [ material - matter ] states.

The issue in regard to dilation is that if the observer is traveling at 100kms per sec away from the globe his actual speed of change is now 'c' + 100kps [ actually it is more probably ('c'+ (100kps/2)) ] yet his change rate must stay at 'c', so time dilates to accomodate the increase in relative velocity so that the observer is still changing at the rate of 'c' as is the globe thus maintaining the same time line and universe.
If they did not they would both be unobservable to each other as they exist in separate time line universes.

Not an easy subject Montec.....

Give it a bloody well rest QQ.

It doesn't make sense when you ask questions like:

How is a universal constant such as gravity acheived?

How is a universal constant such as inertia achieved?

Thye are impossible to derive using current theory.That does nothing to negate what Ben said, on two points.

Firstly, QED is only about electromagnetic interactions. We know it doesn't even describe things involving the other two 'atomic forces'. Talking about gravity is irrelevent. QED is the most accurate theory derived by man within it's domain of applicability. This is almost tautological.

GR attempts to describe gravity. It matches experience for gravitational processes. The fact it doesn't describe quantum interactions of photons is irrelevent to the fact it describes what it set out to do.

Secondly, even if you ignored QED's inability to describe EVERYTHING, it still matches certain experiments to an unmatched accuracy. Find me a theory which accurately describes, to 9 decimal places, anything which it attempts to model. You won't find one other than QED (and perhaps one experiment in GR). Newtonian dynamics? Nope. Maxwell's EM? Nope (QED surplants that).
Light is a product or effect of inertia which is why it is invariant.

There is no distance between every pixel of space time [ zero dimensional ] yet simultaneously we have 4 dimensions. It is this difference [between zero and 4 dimensions that provides the effect of inertia and graviy....IMO.
Talk is cheap. Let's see you provide a working theory.
I cannot explain why every aspect of physics is incorrectly explained except to say that the data is possibly correct but the implication are being wrongly assessed. IMO
You are now firmly in the realm of philosophy and pseudoscience. If something is unmeasurable, is it true? Does God exist, when almost by definition of a 'supernatural effect', it's unmeasurable (or else it would be part of nature)? If no experiment can justify a claim not falsify it, it's not really science. We then move into the realm of Occam's Razor. Can your model/description match all the predictions of current theories? Nope.

Then "My theory is philisophically different from yours" is irrelevent. It's a worse model.

I'll reply to the rest of your post in the morning. It's 4am and I have to get some sleep (damn jetlag!).

The question for me to find an answer to is not about "philosophical differences" or even accuracy of theory predictions.
It is more about how we as a community are declaring "scientifically" that light travels form point A to point B when in fact we have no scientific basis to do so except by the "utility" or usefulness of assuming this as fact.
You can not differentiate light from it's reflector, whether that reflector be a planet, a measuring device or a cloud in the sky.
Now I don't know about you but I see the potential for extraordinary misinterpretation of the data that is aquired on this assumption of light travelling.

You assume that vacant space has dimension? yes? why?
You assume that another theory will invalidate the data aquired so far? yes? Why?

You can declare your theory valid when it is "terminally" doubt ridden due to issues arising from the double slit experiments [ wave particle duaity ] and other critical contras.
You can declare veracity of a theory yet not accept the far reaching consequences of discoveries like quantum entaglement.

There is no room for Ego in good science and that is all this is about Ego.
I don't give a "rats arse" how accurate the data predictions are if the fundamental premise is flawed to begin with.
No, I don't have a complete working theory. But I know a flaw when I see it.
It is impossible to discuss in any detail how the photon theory is critically flawed with out ego-centric reactions.
In fact I don't really need to and to be blunt it is probably best not to as to do so would open up the stars to our ego centric behaviours, and that would be not good at all.

You have an enormous collection of accurate data.
You have a theory for that data that May be terminally flawed.
Maybe we just need to accept the data as correct and find another theory that allows it to remain so.
Assume that distance is non-exstant between objects of mass [ reflectors ] yet keeping in mind that the "distance" does effect intensity or strength but not travel times of energy. [ "light" ] so d/t is more d/i where i= intensity and not time.

Think of the effect of "light delay" being only a "reaction time" for mass to accomodate the change in intensity.

And start from there.