I never said it has mass. I say it is a burst traveling through the ether.
Given the dichotomy either a photon has a mass or it doesn't. Which is it?
Where else has anything been described as a massless particle? No where, that's where.
You mean outside of particle physics where have we described particles?
It's that a bit like asking "Without using the letters t, a, b, l and e spell 'table'".
Where do we see bursts? Everywhere.
Given you have no precise definition of 'burst' and nothing you claim has any evidence to support it over other theories which do have much to support them that statement is nothing but your opinion.
What is a massless particle but a burst moving through a medium?
Another pseudo-rhetorical question where you try to put your opinion across as fact.
Who has proven an ether does not exist?
Every aether model thus far constructed by people has either been proven false, suffers from a host of convoluted caveats or is inferior to the predictive power of relativity. Plus they all presuppose the existence of a material which has never been detected in any way, shape or form.
Besides, no one has proven fairies don't exist but that doesn't mean I believe they do just because some people find it more appealing than believing they don't.
If you accept an ether, than nonsense like a "massless particle" is no longer required
You do realise that aether models don't preclude massless particles? Massless particles can still exist within such theories. Every experiment and natural phenomenon every considered has failed to imply that the photon has mass. The maximum mass the photon can have which would be undetectable to current experiments is 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 1 times that of the electron.
There's no apriori reason to think the photon has a rest mass.
and you can discuss a photon in the photoelectric effect and the DSE as a burst traveling through the ether.
Really? So why can't you provide me with an aether theory which can actually do that? Why can't anyone come up with a viable working aether model of the universe? Every single one of them has been surpassed by modern mainstream physics.
Why have chaos when the ether describes the DSE beautifully?
Yes, why force yourself to suppose the existence of a material which is everywhere but is undetectable and which forces you to view the Earth as a preferred reference frame for the entire universe. Hmmm..... let me think....
And your use of the word 'chaos' is nothing but what Wikipedia would deem 'weasal words'. You choose adjectives which don't reflect an impartial view of mainstream physics but your own opinion. Personally I think that quantum electrodynamics is fantastically elegant. But then I, unlike you, have put in the time and effort to understand QED and a great deal of other mainstream physics topic. It's not chaotic or convoluted and it describes the world around us more accurately, more diversely and more practically than any aether based theory.
Get it into your obviously extremely dense skull that when someone says "Theory X describes phenomenon Y" they don't mean "It's a vague qualitative description lacking precision but gives a good intuitive understanding of said phenomenon" but "It quantitatively and accurately describes the dynamics of a system which has been tested using numerous repeated experiments and allows us to predict the behaviour of systems within which this phenomenon is the primary process".
If Newton's work in gravity had been him saying "Things which go up must come down" he'd have become as famous as he did? Or if Einstein said only "You can't go as fast as you like" he'd have ever got out of that patent office? No, of course not. Physics is much more than vague concepts based on poor day to day intuition, as you seem to think it is. It's about accurately understanding phenomena, constructing models and testing them. Again and again. You claim aether theories explain the DSE yet you offer nothing to be tested. You think QM is chaotic but you don't even know it. Are you really so naive, stupid and arrogant to think your grasp (or utter lack of) of quantum mechanics means you can evaluate it? Or that your utterly vague almost random guesses about some phenomena you don't understand properly mean you're doing physics? I bet I've spent more time today doing physics than you've done in the last year. I've certainly done more quantum mechanics (it's 1.40am now and I've been sitting at my desk doing Mathematica coding and scribbling equations since about 4.30pm).
You talk about 'elegance' but you wouldn't know an elegant quantitative theory even if you saw one because you don't seem to understand the need for mathematics within a theory of physics. And I would imagine you don't understand much maths either.
What is the manifold made of?
You continue to try to relate concepts outside your day to day experience with things you are familiar with. I could just as easily ask you "What is space made of?". Saying "Space is space, it's a medium." doesn't answer the question in any explanatory way. You are just defining the word to mean what it means. It's circular.
If there is something in space, that means it will be displaced by the objects that move through it. The objects will create a displacement wave as they move through the medium of space. It is this displacement wave that goes through both slits in the DSE.
You can't have something in space without it being displaced by the objects in it.
So what is it? Is space a void or does it consist of something?
Don't forget, if you say it is something that means it is displaced by the objects in it.
Furious arm waving and wordy attempts to describe something in a way which makes it seem like there's a quantitative model in there but there isn't. You have no model, you have no derivation, you have nothing to even develop. Your approach is entirely analogous to cultures millennia explaining phenomena like lightning as "God is angry" because doing controlled experiments, making precise statements and developing quantitative models which can then be tested was beyond them. Just as it is obviously beyond you.